Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

SPEAKER'S STATEMENT

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make.
On 19 April, I announced to the House that I had asked the Attorney-General to seek an authoritative ruling from the courts on whether the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) was entitled to resume her seat, following the quashing of her conviction by the Court of Appeal. The court's determination was sought by way of an answer to the following question:
Is the defendant now entitled, according to the proper construction of the Representation of the People Act 1983, to resume her seat in Parliament as Member of Parliament for Newark?
The decision yesterday of Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr. Justice Mitchell was that the answer to the question was yes. The court accordingly granted a declaration that the defendant was so entitled. The hon. Lady has therefore resumed her seat.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for what you have said, but would it be at all proper for me to ask whether you have given any indication to the Government of your view that an urgent review of the law in this area is required, following this matter? I think that, following the events that have just culminated happily, there is a strong feeling that the matter has become urgent. I am sure that you will have a view on that, although I accept that it would not necessarily be proper for you to express it now.

Madam Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman looks in Hansard, I think he will find that, when I first made a statement about this, I indicated to the Government that it might be wise to look at these matters in future, for the sake of Members in all parts of the House.

Orders of the Day — Protection of Children Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 2

REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

'.—The Secretary of State shall, within eighteen months of the date on which sections 1 to 4 of this Act are brought into force (or, if those sections are brought into force on different dates, the latest of those dates), lay before Parliament a written report stating, in relation to the first twelve months after those sections entered into force—

(a) the number of people placed on the list kept under section 1, otherwise than provisionally;
(b) the number of people provisionally placed in the list kept under section 1;
(c) the number of people on the list who have initiated appeal procedures;
(d) the average length of time taken to confirm the inclusion of individuals on the list kept under section 1; and
(e) the average length of time elapsing between the commencement of appeal proceedings and determination by the Tribunal of the appeal in question.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It was clear from the beginning, on Second Reading, that there was broad consensus throughout the House in support of the principles of the Bill, but that there were considerable concerns about its implications for the rights of individuals, about the way in which it gave powers to the Executive branch rather than the judicial branch, so that decisions would be taken by the Executive rather than the judiciary, and about the availability of access to a proper appeal mechanism within the scope of the Bill.
The Standing Committee was one of the most constructive and effective on which I have had the pleasure to serve. Sadly, Standing Committees do not always perform their intended function of considering a Bill in detail with the clear intention of improving the way that it works and reaching consensus on aspects where there is controversy or disagreement, but in this case Members on both sides of the Committee—and the Government—engaged in an effective debate to try to improve the Bill, not only to fulfil its principal purpose of protecting children, but to protect the rights of those whose name may be placed on the list to be kept by the Secretary of State.
The Bill was considerably strengthened in Committee by the inclusion of additional safeguards, by the assurances given by the Minister from the Dispatch Box, and by the deletion of certain words and phrases that had caused concern in certain parts of the House that the Bill's scope might be too wide.
The amended version of the Bill is undoubtedly an improvement on the original version. Some amendments, although not made, were debated in Committee, and in some cases the issues were argued out to the satisfaction


of all concerned. In other cases, the Minister gave the Committee assurances that went some way—if not all the way—to satisfy Members' concerns.
My perception is that, when the Committee finished its consideration of the Bill, its members felt that, on balance, the Bill, while certainly not perfect, made a worthwhile contribution to the very important cause of ensuring the protection of vulnerable children, although they acknowledged that it could not be a comprehensive measure in that respect. It is only part of the solution to a very wide and, sadly, intransigent problem, but an important part none the less.

Mr. Eric Forth: The use of the phrase "not perfect" troubles me. I wonder whether a Bill that operates in that most important and sensitive area, the civil liberties of individuals, is safe to proceed if it is, in that sense, less than perfect. I hope that my hon. Friend will be sensitive about that during these proceedings, and will at least by the end of the day be able to tell me and the rest of the House that he is satisfied that the Bill is sufficiently perfect to be acceptable and to proceed with its passage through Parliament.

Mr. Hammond: "Perfect" is a term that I use sparingly, particularly with regard to legislation. I am not sure that perfect legislation exists. I think that we should be testing the robustness of the proposed legislation, in terms of its ability to deliver on its principal purpose and its ability to protect the interests of those individuals who find themselves, for one reason or another, placed on the list that the Secretary of State will keep. However, my right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the Bill touches on the issue of fundamental human rights. It is incumbent on us to satisfy ourselves, by the end of our consideration of the Bill, that fundamental human rights have been protected. I hope that a combination of amendments to the Bill, measures that are to be set out in the Bill and assurances that perhaps, in some instances, the Minister can give us from the Government Dispatch Box, will create a climate in which hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that it is safe to proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: On the character of the Bill as it has emerged from Committee, does my hon. Friend agree that we are hoping to move to legislation that is, if not perfect, fit for its purpose? Does he further agree that we should not entertain the notion that the Bill deals in every sense with the problem of securing children against abuse, even from those who are in a position of trust and responsibility, and that alongside it every other possible measure should be considered, such as the safe and alert practice in volunteering, which I know has been piloted in a number of places? That approach, which goes beyond the protections in the Bill, gives additional security to children where people other than their parents are responsible for them.

Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we recognise—I think all members of the Committee did—that, although the Bill can make an important contribution to the protection of children, it is certainly not possible for it to provide total protection. It would be dangerous if anyone were to believe that it did.
We discussed in Committee the dangers that might arise through a false sense of security developing as a result of the Bill. It is essential that those who are employing people in positions of trust in relation to children are aware that the Bill is not a complete solution to the issue and that they must remain vigilant and carry out the normal checks that one would expect of a respectable employer in such a sensitive area.
Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) intervened on me, I had said that the members of the Committee felt at the end of the Bill's consideration in Committee that it made a worthwhile contribution to the protection of children. I believe that they felt also that, although there were still some questions that needed further consideration, the Bill provided broadly adequate safeguards, for individuals placed on the list to be kept by the Secretary of State.
Those might seem to be slightly guarded words. I think that it is to that area that we shall be addressing ourselves primarily today—in other words, to the quality of the safeguards that the Bill includes. The new clause addresses those safeguards.
9.45 am
I readily acknowledge that, together with amendments agreed to in Committee, assurances were given by the Minister—including what I took to be an assurance about financial support for appeals by individuals against inclusion in the list. However, the Minister was unable to agree to an amendment that would have included within the legal aid regime provisions entitling individuals to legal aid for appeals to the tribunal that was to be established under the Bill. Nevertheless, the Minister gave an assurance that the current review of the legal aid system would include a review of the appropriate method for supporting appeals arising under the Bill. The Minister drew the Committee's attention to the variety of other sources of financial support that might be available to individuals who found themselves included on the list to be kept by the Secretary of State, and who believed that they had proper grounds for appeal against that inclusion.
I took the Minister's comments in Committee to be an assurance that individuals who have been included on the list will not find themselves unable to access the tribunal for want of financial resources. I think that everyone in the House would agree that where an individual is included in the list in a way that disables him, in a real sense, in his everyday life, including his ability to obtain employment, he must have access to a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, especially when the original inclusion on the list has been the result of an Executive decision. An individual's lack of financial resources should not be allowed to deprive him of the right of access to the tribunal.
I have already run into trouble once this week in misinterpreting the precise requirements of the European convention on human rights. However, I imagine that the terms of article 6 requires that access to the tribunal should be realistically available to an individual, and not merely available in theory. Of course, for it to be realistically available it must be affordable. I took what the Minister said in Committee to be an important assurance on that issue. The amendments accepted by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) and endorsed


by the Minister, together with the Minister's assurances, answered many of the concerns that I and other hon. Members raised in Committee.
However, there are some outstanding issues, which will be touched on today. The hon. Lady's amendments address one area of concern, which is the possibility of people slipping through the net because of the long time that frequently elapses between people leaving a position of employment, abuse having taken place, and the facts of that abuse coming to light.
I ask the hon. Lady to accept that, although we approach the Bill as brought from Committee in a constructive and positive spirit, there are some residual concerns, and we must take the opportunity this morning to deal with them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has said, it is incumbent on us, in dealing with a Bill that touches on areas of fundamental human rights, to ensure that the safeguards that have been built into it are robust and will be workable and effective once the Bill is on the statute book.
My new clause deals with my concern that, although we undertake great and detailed scrutiny of legislation, we tend to forget it once it is on the statute book. It is incumbent on us to be vigilant, not only on behalf of children—whom the Bill seeks to protect—but on behalf of those who may be wrongly or unjustly included on the list that will be kept.
This modest new clause provides for Members of the House who are concerned to be able to review the workings of the measure, after it has been in force for a year or so, by considering figures relating to areas of concern that have been raised during proceedings on the Bill. It simply requires the Secretary of State to provide certain basic information to enable us to assess the workings of the Bill. I have not even asked for annual reports, but have asked simply for a one-off. That will enable us to assess how the measure has worked and to sound the alarm bells if any of the reassurances that were given in Committee—and will, perhaps, be given again today by the Minister—prove in any way to be unfounded.
The new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on the number of people placed on the list that is to be kept under clause 1. It is important for us to know the extent of the list. Various members of the Standing Committee have their own ideas about how many people are likely to find themselves included, but we do not know whether the requirements on employers who dismiss or otherwise deal with an employee who is believed to have been involved in inappropriate conduct, or in misconduct relevant in the context of the Bill, will unleash a deluge of referrals to the Secretary of State. We do not know whether there is, below the water, a part of the iceberg that we cannot see. Implicit in the Bill's introduction is the belief that there is a submerged problem, so there is a question mark over the number of referrals that are likely to be made.
There will be two classes of person on the list. First, people will be included provisionally, from the time of the referral to the Secretary of State, when there is a prima facie case for inclusion, and while the Secretary of State makes the proper inquiries and gives the individual the proper opportunity to respond to his inclusion. Secondly, people will be included permanently and finally following a determination by the Secretary of State or—in exceptional circumstances—by the tribunal that will be

established under the Bill. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on both categories.
The new clause also requires the Secretary of State to report on the number of people who have initiated appeal proceedings. That information will be vital to those who are assessing how the Bill is working. Even more importantly, the new clause requires the Secretary of State to report the average time he takes to confirm an individual's inclusion on the list.

Mr. Lansley: Can my hon. Friend help me? I have read the new clause, but I am not sure by what means we would find out the extent to which referrals to the list were being made, but were not proceeding to inclusion. Would it not be useful for someone reviewing the Bill's implementation to know not about the individual cases, but about the aggregate figure—the extent to which bodies make what turn out to be spurious referrals?

Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. He spoke of spurious referrals, but referrals that are not included on the list, even provisionally, will not all be spurious. The Minister made it clear in Committee that the Government intend to issue guidance to organisations that are required to make referrals to the Secretary of State under clause 1. There will be a learning curve, and it is perfectly likely that organisations will err on the side of caution in the early days of the Bill's operation. They may interpret the Secretary of State's guidelines cautiously and refer someone if they think that there is any chance that he will fall within those guidelines. The Secretary of State will review the referrals and decide whether there is a prima facie case for including people on the list.
I suspect that there will be a process whereby organisations will see which cases the Secretary of State includes on the list and which he does not. They will begin to establish in their own minds a clear idea of when it is appropriate to make a referral, and in what circumstances a referral would be proper and would be likely to lead to the Secretary of State including someone on the list.

Mr. Lansley: We have happened on an interesting point. My hon. Friend was quite right to correct me; referrals would not necessarily be spurious, but they may be unjustified—that is perhaps a more neutral phrase. It will be important to be aware of the balance between referrals that prove to be unjustified and those that lead to inclusion on the list. If a high number of referrals are not included, there will be a problem. The sanctions relating to provisional inclusion are rightly tough and there would be difficulties if a large number of individuals were provisionally included, only for their inclusion subsequently to be found to be unjustified.

Mr. Hammond: I take my hon. Friend's point, but, if my understanding of the Bill is correct, the Secretary of State will not automatically place a name on the list when he receives a referral, but will do so if
it appears that it may be appropriate for the individual to be included in the list".
There will be a learning curve in the early stages and organisations will learn what are the Secretary of State's criteria. The Secretary of State will issue guidance to


assist organisations, but practice will lead them to a clear working understanding of when it is appropriate to refer and when it is not.
10 am
I confess that my hon. Friend has made an interesting point. I did not include it in my new clause, and I note that he has not included it in an amendment or a new clause of his own. I have learned, in my brief time in the House, that the best riposte to anyone who tells one that one's amendment or new clause is inadequate is to challenge them as to why they have not tabled their own. It usually has the desired effect.
One of the key areas that we addressed in Committee, and a legitimate area of concern, was that an individual who finds himself provisionally included on the list should not be left there to rot for a long period without access to some form of judicial review or appeal tribunal. That part of the Bill was substantially improved in Committee, and the Bill before us today provides that an individual who has been on the list provisionally for nine months may apply to the tribunal to determine whether he should be included on the list.
Although we could debate whether nine months is the appropriate period, everybody agrees that it is an absolutely essential safeguard to incorporate in the Bill if individuals provisionally on the list are to have the right to appeal to the tribunal in the event of the Secretary of State's taking an unduly long time to determine their case.
One reason why I have sought to obtain information about the average time taken to confirm the inclusion of individuals on the list is that, although the time limit for allowing an individual so included to appeal to the tribunal has been set at nine months, it was clear from what the Minister told the Committee that it was envisaged that, in the vast majority of cases, the Secretary of State could make his determination much more quickly than that. The Minister said that the nine-month limit was a backstop, which left the Department feeling comfortable that it could deal with run-of-the-mill cases well within that time scale.
Considerable disabilities are attached to being included on the list, even provisionally, and we shall want to be sure that the Department is dealing with cases in a timely fashion and that the nine-month limit for appeal to a tribunal does not become a buffer against which the Department runs the routine cases. I expect that many cases will be dealt with very quickly —within weeks. Given that the majority of cases will be fairly straightforward, I expect that the average time, which is what the Secretary of State is asked to report on under paragraph (d) of new clause 2, will be short—perhaps three months. It would be interesting to hear the Department's view on the likely time scale for dealing with "normal" cases that come before the Secretary of State for determination under this legislation.
Finally—

Mr. David Maclean: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks, there is one aspect on which he has not touched and about which I am unclear. He will be aware that in clause 9, which sets up the tribunal, the Secretary of State has been given the

power to make regulations. Some 20 different regulating powers are prescribed there. One of the key facets of the workings of the Bill will be how the tribunals work, the general trend of cases, the excuses that some people make, and whether lawyers are employed. I am not sure whether there is a general instruction under the Council on Tribunals for there to be an annual report from the tribunal itself so that we can see what is happening at tribunals. The new clause does not address that point. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that parliamentarians will be able to get a report on the trends at tribunals and the justifications for their actions?

Mr. Hammond: I should be more careful when I use the word "finally". I do not wish to alarm my right hon. Friend—but I meant "finally" not in the sense that I was about to sit down, but in the sense that I was merely about to turn to paragraph (e), which is the last of the paragraphs. He need therefore have no immediate fear on that ground.
The point that my right hon. Friend raises is interesting. I do not purport to be an expert on the general body of law regarding tribunals, but I noticed that the Minister was nodding his head vigorously during my right hon. Friend's remarks, so he might be able to offer him some reassurance later in the debate.
Ultimately—as I shall put it—paragraph (e) requires the Secretary of State to report also on
the average length of time elapsing between the commencement of appeal proceedings
by an individual on the list. That would include both individuals provisionally included on the list, who were appealing to the tribunal for a determination of whether they should be on the list at all, and individuals included on the list other than provisionally as a result of a determination by the Secretary of State, who were appealing against that determination.
That matter will concern all those who are anxious to protect individuals and avoid yet further erosion of their human rights. It will be a matter of great concern to ensure that appeals under this legislation are dealt with in a timely fashion. The starting point—admittedly, not a solution to the problem—will be to have the information available so that we may assess, first, whether there is a problem and, secondly, the extent of that problem.
The question of time limits was of particular concern in Committee. Despite pressure from some Committee members, the Minister was reluctant to accept tighter limits on the Department than those that have subsequently been incorporated in the Bill. The single most important response that I should like to hear from the Minister today is that the time limits in the Bill will not come to be considered as the norm, but will always be considered as a backstop so that we can dispatch the vast majority of cases much more quickly.
It is vital that we review this measure after it has come into effect to confirm that the assurances that we received in Committee, and any that we receive from the Minister today, are valid and that the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House are unfounded. That is the principal purpose of new clause 2, but it also serves a secondary purpose. I am conscious of the fact that it might be possible to obtain the information sought in new clause 2 by other means.
Including a requirement to lay this information before Parliament in the Bill also sends a clear signal that we are not complacent about the human rights of people who are placed on the list, and that we will be as vigilant on their behalf as we will be on behalf of the children whom this measure is designed to protect. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, both sides of the House have recognised that, if this measure is to be durable and robust, it is essential that we get the balance right between the desire to protect children and the need to protect the rights of individuals who are caught up in the administrative system and put on the list created by the Bill.
I hope that the hon. Member for Stourbridge and the Minister will accept this modest proposal to impose a limited element of post-legislative scrutiny of this measure. If the Minister is not minded to accept new clause 2, I hope that he will at least accept the principle that lies behind it, and give the House concrete assurances on the provision, through some other means, of the information that I seek to have available after the Bill has come into effect.

Ms Debra Shipley: I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) for his comments, which I echo. The Committee stage of the Bill was my first experience of a Committee, and as the Member in charge I found it a steep learning curve. I was extremely lucky that the Committee was constructive. All hon. Members recognised the importance of the topic—the protection of children—and the importance of balancing that with the rights of the individual. When the Bill came out of Committee it had been strengthened: it was a better Bill than when it went in. That shows Parliament at its best, working on a serious topic. Constructive, useful and effective are the words I would use to describe the Committee, and I thank all members of the Committee for their sincere and long efforts—the Committee went into five sittings.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that the Bill was not perfect. I immediately thought, "No, it isn't perfect because it doesn't stop abuse of children and all the avenues that abusers can use." That saddens me enormously. A huge number of people have written to me sad and sickening letters. The Bill may go only some way towards closing down avenues of abuse, but it is an important "some way".
I am in some difficulty over the new clause, because I am more than sympathetic. I welcome the fact that it reflects the depth of interest there has already been in my Bill, and which I am sure will continue to be shown once the legislation becomes operational. A wide range of organisations will be keen to see how the Bill is working, and it would be right to respond to that interest. However, the wording of the new clause leaves a little to be desired. That is perhaps because it is a probing amendment to establish the fact that there will be a great interest in the Bill, and that the Secretary of State should be expected to respond to it appropriately.
Taking the new clause at face value, I believe that it is rather limited. It envisages only one report from the Secretary of State, which is wholly confined to the operation of the Department of Health's list. If interest in

the Bill extends to an interest in the operation of some of the main provisions, the Secretary of State should provide a wide range of information.

Mr. Hammond: I do not know what discussions the hon. Lady has had with the Minister on this subject, but, in framing my new clause very tightly and very modestly, I was hoping that it would sneak in under the wire of bureaucratic rejection of reporting whenever possible.

Ms Shipley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments. As he is aware, I have all along wanted more and more for the Bill while always being aware that, as a Back Bencher, I can have only less and less. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my comments as supportive of the principle of the new clause.
Such statutory requirements as are in the new clause are rarely desirable or necessary in principle. What may be seen at the outset as the most important features of the Bill to be monitored—even before the ink is dry—may turn out to be much less important than other unforeseen ones or newly felt concerns. If there were a statutory requirement, which it would take a new statute to change, the Government would be committed to churning out data that no one wanted, whereas the data that people did want would not be so readily available.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady has moved on to another point, but I want to ask her about remarks she made earlier. The Bill covers the Department of Health's list, the Department for Education and Employment's list and the tribunals operating under the Lord Chancellor's direction. I do not want the hon. Lady to make any commitment, but given that the Government believe in joined-up government—to use their own terminology—does she agree with me that, if we were to have a report to Parliament, it should be a more comprehensive overview?

Ms Shipley: The more information is readily available to Parliament, the public and interested organisations, the better. I would urge the Secretary of State to be open and forthcoming with information, so as to facilitate monitoring and assessment. As for an overarching umbrella, I think that it is appropriate to have both types of information available—joined-up, interdepartmental information and specific information, where appropriate.
I wondered whether I could suggest a way forward that would satisfy the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I could undertake to convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State my support for the spirit of the thinking behind the new clause. I must have made it clear by now that I support the spirit of the new clause. I invite the hon. Gentleman to accept that active consideration—perhaps Whitehall-wide and over a longer time scale than that envisaged in the new clause—should be given to what information could be collected and published about the operation of the legislation.
I grant that, in the larger scheme of things, the legislation will be a part of a series of interlocking measures. That seems to me to be the best way to proceed. As we have had little time since the new clause was tabled to think this matter through, I am unable to comment


further, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say a little more. I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will find that acceptable.

Mr. Forth: One appreciates the response of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) to the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), but we shall have to hear quite a bit more before I can regard that as a satisfactory response to the issue covered in the new clause. We are seeking a mechanism whereby we can be reassured that the measures that will be taken as a result of the Bill will be transparent and accountable, and we can have guarantees that the whole process will be proper and open.
I shall paraphrase what the hon. Lady has just said as, "Trust me or trust the Minister; it'll all be okay." I am afraid that those of us who have spent a little time in the foothills of government find that less than reassuring. I am not criticising government or Whitehall, for which I have the greatest admiration, but, as the hon. Lady has conceded, we are discussing an area of the law that carries with it enormous sensitivities and considerable risks. My hon. Friend made that point powerfully and effectively. I do not think anyone has denied that. We are faced with the difficult task of balancing the risks.
Of course we all want to take every proper and effective measure to protect children. There has never been any dispute about that; nor will there be during the Bill's passage through the House of Commons. From the outset, however—on Second Reading, and throughout the Committee stage—worries have rightly been expressed about the striking of a balance between the necessary protection of children and the need to ensure that our encroachments on the rights and liberties of individuals are kept in check.
The new clause seeks to provide reassurance in the form of a visible, reliable mechanism to ensure that what is done is proportionate and acceptable. I must confess that I have had to take issue with my hon. Friend's approach, and may not feel able to support the new clause, for reasons touched on by both the hon. Member for Stourbridge and my hon. Friend himself.
The new clause makes provision only for a one-off report. That strikes me as odd, given that we are dealing with a new situation, and especially given the sensitivities involved. We want to ensure that there is a proper reporting mechanism, but I do not think that once is enough. Surely, as the hon. Lady implied, it is not unreasonable to expect an annual report if we are to gain the reassurance that we all seek.

Mr. Hammond: I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying, but perhaps we have different aims. My right hon. Friend wants a mechanism providing for on-going monitoring, while I am more concerned with establishing whether my expectations about the number of people who might be caught by the provision, and the length of time for which they might wait for a determination, are broadly correct. I consider that it will be enough to examine what has happened during the first year of the Bill's operation; my right hon. Friend is suggesting a different type of on-going scrutiny, which would serve a different purpose.

Mr. Forth: I half accept what my hon. Friend has said, and I understand why he has said it; but can we assume

that the early information provided for by the new clause would be representative? We shall need to see what pattern emerges in the early stages of the Bill's operation—and by "early stages" I mean not the first year or 18 months, but a longer period. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's explanation, even on the basis on which he has offered it.
I shall return shortly to the question of what response would be expected to the information provided for in the new clause. First, however, let me draw attention to a lacuna that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) hinted in his intervention—has already been spotted. I share the blame, if blame is to be apportioned, for not spotting it earlier and seeking to correct it. I see no requirement in the Bill for the tribunal to report on what it is doing. Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure us; my memory of the overall provision for tribunals has faded somewhat, and, uncharacteristically, even my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border could not put his finger on it. However, my right hon. Friend and I both fear that, unless there is to be an overall provision in the guidance for tribunals compelling them to issue regular public reports on what they have been doing, something is missing from both the Bill and, regrettably, the new clause.
We all want—at least, I hope that we all want—to be certain that, whatever happens in the early stages of the Bill's implementation, we know everything about it. We want to know that there will be a mechanism providing for early review, and for any necessary correction to be made.
That leads us to an interesting question. How will we judge success, in terms of the operation of both the Bill and the tribunal? Will it mean a large number of cases, or a very small number? As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, the new clause would provide the beginnings of a means of measuring success, in that it requires the number of people placed on the list, provisionally placed on the list and so on to be enumerated; but do we want or expect to see a large or a small number of people on the list? That is germane to the effectiveness of both the Bill and the tribunal.

Mr. Hammond: One of our most important tasks will be to compare the number of people on the list to be kept under the Bill with the number of those on the non-statutory list currently maintained by the Department of Health.

Mr. Forth: That is a legitimate approach, but it is only one approach. What bothers me is this: do we want to encourage putting a large number of people through this process, or to discourage it? If we want to encourage it, anxieties about the implications for civil liberties must increase in proportion. I concede that the new clause provides at least the basis for a judgment to be made.

Mr. Hammond: That point will be addressed primarily by the guidance that the Government will issue. As is often the case, it is difficult for us to judge the effect of the legislation from what is in the Bill; the guts of that legislation will be contained in guidance, regulations or secondary legislation.

Mr. Forth: That is an important point, of which those of us who have been responsible for the passage of


legislation are all too aware. The difficulty lies in the making of a proper, rounded judgment on both what is in the Bill and what we are told, or anticipate, will underpin it. That brings us back to the "Trust me" approach. We are being told, "This is the overall thrust of the Bill; the details will emerge in due course, in the form of regulations or guidance." As we do not know those details, we are required to exercise an element of trust. We must accept that, however uncomfortable it may make us feel—especially when we are dealing with issues as this.
Even more important than the criterion on which success is to be measured is the unasked question that lurks behind all this: what do we expect to be the response to the information provided for by the new clause? Whether we have the one-off report proposed by my hon. Friend or the regular reports that I would prefer, we are left with an intriguing question, which I hope will be answered either by the hon. Member for Stourbridge or by the Minister: what should our response be to the information? What if the number of names on the list or provisionally on the list, the number of appeals, the length of time and so on began to alarm us? What if they were too large or too small, or if appeals were taking too long to deal with? That would raise some very awkward issues.
10.30 am
Given that so much will be dealt with in the Bill—which will by then be statute—are we able to rely on a promise that a variation in the details of guidance or regulations will be a sufficient response should information emerge, one way or the other, on the operation of the new clause's provisions? Such questions touch on the necessary balance between an Act's provisions, regulations and guidance.
Funnily enough—although hon. Members often argue, for our own sense of security, for as much as possible to be included in a Bill—in this case, it might be more reassuring if more of the detail were dealt with in regulations or guidance, precisely so that changes might be made in response to information that would be elicited by the new clause. Although I do not often make that type of argument, I think that it is right to do so in this case.

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend's train of thought, but there is another little problem to feed into the conundrum. If new clause 1 had been selected, my right hon. Friend would undoubtedly have made a passionate plea for legal aid provision to be extended. However, the Government are reviewing legal aid, and—probably after the Bill is passed—people covered by the Bill's provisions may not qualify for legal aid. Although legal aid may not be granted when those people initially appear before the tribunal, they may receive it later. Will there not be a different balance and mix of provision, and will not time limits be lengthened?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman may have assisted the House by interrupting the train of thought of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), as we were getting into matters that go rather wider—indeed, to the philosophical nature of legislation generally—than

new clause 2 specifically. It would therefore be helpful if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst returned to his more narrow brief.

Mr. Forth: I am, as ever, grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and—for the reasons that you gave—shall not be tempted on this occasion to deal with the issue that my right hon. Friend has raised.
I am trying to establish the extent to which the information that would flow from new clause 2 should be expected to give rise to consequent action, as that is germane to our consideration of the detailed information that new clause 2 proposes should be provided. It would be helpful if we could have some guidance on the matter from either the hon. Member for Stourbridge or the Minister.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, however, has prompted me to ask—I think that, at this stage, it is a legitimate question to ask—whether the Bill's definitions are sufficiently settled for to us rely on the information that would emerge if the new clause were passed.
As we speak, an interdepartmental working group is beavering away on matters that are very closely related to the matters dealt with in the Bill. It would help us if the Minister—on this occasion, the Minister rather than the hon. Member for Stourbridge—told us just what stage the group has reached in it work, and how that work might relate to the information that would emerge from the provisions of the new clause, thereby helping to inform the House of the relevance of the new clause and the information that it would provide.
If we were able to have all that information, hon. Members might conclude that new clause 2 was defective. I am now convincing myself that it is, and that I shall not be able to support it today. However, in the other place—in the light of what has been said today, the guidance that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has given and the comments of the hon. Member for Stourbridge—the proposals in the new clause may be reconsidered, and it may be thought that they are the appropriate means of addressing the issues.
As so often happens at this stage in the consideration of a Bill, we are debating a very important idea that has not been dealt with fully in an amendment. That is my conclusion on the new clause.
I believe that the new clause is on to something very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has raised an important issue, but I am not—for the reasons that I have given—entirely happy with the way in which it would operate. However, I hope that, when the Minister answers some of the questions that have been asked, we will find a way of implementing the principle behind the new clause, and thus improve the Bill.

Jackie Ballard: I shall be brief, not only because I am losing my voice, but because I should like to ensure that the Bill makes progress today. I shall therefore not feel it necessary to speak to every amendment that is moved.
I share the widespread view that the Bill was improved greatly in Committee, where the core of our debate was a wish to ensure that the legislation generally provides greater protection to children, but not at the expense of


denying basic rights, especially employment rights, to innocent people—I repeat, innocent people, as that is what matters. We all want to remove, so far as possible, any risk of abuse of children.
As other hon. Members have said, we had very constructive debates in Committee. I particularly welcome acceptance of the need to include in the Bill a time limit between an individual's initial inclusion on the list and the exercise of his or her right to be heard at an appeal. In the time such people are on the list, they are unable to find any work in the profession of their choice. Moreover, the longer they are on the list, the less likely it is that they will be able to find other work in child care, even if they are ultimately found to be completely innocent of any charges. People tend to believe that "there's no smoke without fire" and to ask, "What were you doing for that year or more?" I therefore very much welcome the decision to include such a limit in the Bill.
I welcome also the Minister's hope that the determination of appeals will be dealt with well within the nine-month limit, and that the limit will not be thought of only as a target—as, despite the best of intentions, so often happens when a limit is provided in legislation.
New clause 2 helpfully raises some important issues. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) thinks that it is helpful, although I understand her problems in having to temper her desires with the ministerial reality of the Government's views on the matter. However, new clause 2 would enable Parliament to monitor the Bill's progress, after it becomes an Act, by providing information on the number of people included in the list, how provisional listing worked in practice and the efficiency and effectiveness of the tribunal process.
The hon. Member for Stourbridge seemed to take the view that the new clause was too prescriptive, and that it would perhaps limit opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise progress on the Act's implementation. I do not think of it in those terms. A statutory provision requiring Ministers to report in 18 months' time does not mean that, in 18 months or more, a Minister cannot lay before Parliament a report providing more relevant information. I should hope that "open government" entails the Government's wish to provide the most comprehensive progress reports on legislation that they can provide, and that Ministers will not feel constrained in reporting by what the House thought was most important at a specific time.
I therefore hope that at least the spirit of new clause 2 will find its way into future deliberations on the Bill in the other place, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Mr. Maclean: I give new clause 2 my provisional support, although I am concerned that it may not go far enough to deal with some of the issues that we have touched on this morning.
First, I should like to comment briefly on the Bill as it has emerged from Committee. We often say, particularly on Fridays, that the Bill under consideration has been wonderfully improved in Committee. Over the past 15 years, I can certainly recall occasions when the use of that terminology has been slightly optimistic. Of course, no hon. Members have told untruths about the extent to

which a Bill has been improved, but they may have exaggerated the importance of the one or two technical amendments that have been made.
Today's Bill is in a different category altogether, as is clear from the five sittings of the Standing Committee. On Fridays, we are often asked to make amendments and consider new clauses on a Bill that was bounced through Committee in half an hour and, we are told, wonderfully improved. However, in this case I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) and the hon. Members on the Standing Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond).
I now turn more specifically to the new clause and to the libertarian issues that concern me, including some of the arguments advanced by Liberty. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who, unusually, is not in his place today, for tabling amendments that the hon. Member for Stourbridge was sensible and gracious enough to accept and have improved the Bill. They dealt with the point relating to incompetence, which was one of the main concerns expressed on Second Reading.
Nevertheless, it is possible for a good Bill such as this one, which is better than when it was last before the House, to be improved further. I am not sure that it is perfect legislation, but I can see fewer dangers with it than with the so-called perfect Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. No doubt, if we had had a report after 18 months of the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Act, we might have concluded that there was scope to amend it earlier than we did.
I hope that the Minister will not advance the argument that there should not be a reporting requirement, and that his defensive briefing, written by any of the two or three Departments that may have an interest in the Bill or in the new clause, does not include the advice, "For goodness sake, Minister, do not offer an annual review. Imagine the mess that we will be in if the Bill turns out to be as bad as the Dangerous Dogs Act. We will all be very embarrassed."
I am fairly certain that that is not in the Minister's briefing, but, if he has been advised not to accept a reporting requirement because it may be immature and expose some inadequacies in the Bill, that is not a good enough argument. I seek a reporting procedure not to try to discover any inadequacies in the Bill, so that we can catch the Government out and say that they did not protect children as perfectly as they could have, but because we want to see whether general trends emerge in what the abusers are doing and how they are operating the law and spot potential gaps and loopholes.
The hon. Member for Stourbridge and the Government have admitted that the Bill is not the be-all and end-all, but is only one in a comprehensive series of measures designed to tighten up loopholes in earlier legislation and to ratchet up the measures against those who abuse children.
It is delightful to see the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), in his place this morning. His experience will be exactly the same as mine if he has talked to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and any of the police forces in Britain: as soon as measures are introduced to deal with current criminality, even before the legislation has


completed all stages, criminals are thinking of ways around it. Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of paedophiles and child abusers.
When we debate legislation to deal with soccer hooliganism, and particularly since the ghastly outrages and bombing incidents in London recently, we tend to describe the perpetrators as dangerous thugs and mindless morons—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was beginning to detect threads of a Third Reading speech in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I am now beginning to think that they have moved beyond that. May we please return to the new clause?

Mr. Maclean: My sincere apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The report in the new clause may identify trends among paedophiles and child abusers. Hon. Members will know that those who abuse children are not thugs or mindless morons; some of them are very clever and very skilful at covering their tracks.

Mr. Forth: My problem with the new clause is that it would not show trends, as there would be only one report. My right hon. Friend must square up to that. If he supports the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), he must find a way around the problem that a one-off report will not show trends.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend, with his customary logic, is right. I am sympathetic to the new clause, which would be a step in the right direction. I could not bear to oppose it, but I also agree with the hon. Member for Stourbridge that, in this world of joined-up government, it would be beneficial if the provision did more than place an obligation on the Secretary of State for Health under clauses 1 to 4. If the new clause cannot go further, perhaps the Government can do so non-statutorily and produce a joined-up report, taking into account aspects in the new clause and some of the loopholes that it has missed that I should like to mention.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said about his new clause and I shall not repeat his arguments. However, it is important that the House should be informed in a coherent and sensible way about the operation of the legislation. Like others, I am not sure that a one-off report in 18 months' time is sufficient. I would have preferred my hon. Friend to amend his new clause to provide for an annual report. I shall discuss later whether it should be statutory; it may not have to be.
If the Minister accepts the spirit of the new clause and other proposals that I shall make on how it can be improved, an annual report from the various Departments concerned—presumably it would have to be produced by the Cabinet Office, as it would involve joined-up government—including chapters from all of them on how they saw the system working, could be produced, providing a more comprehensive overview of those who were placed on the list and what they were up to. We should be able to get an idea of that from the way in which they bring appeals and the arguments that they use.
We know that, as people start appearing before tribunals, there will be work for double the number of lawyers, although I am not criticising the lawyers who will run behind the ambulance of the Bill. I am not criticising the Minister of State, Home Office, who can be forgiven for having been a lawyer in his past life. I am glad to see that he now has decent employment. It is inevitable that some lawyers will specialise in defending those who have been put on the list. A body of argument will develop quickly and there will be a trend of justification and the best legal excuses for justifying what has happened. I hope that most of those excuses will not get past the sensible people who will be appointed to the tribunal under clause 9, but inevitably some people will get off—the House may think wrongly—because a body of law has grown up or certain excuses have come to be accepted that are not covered by the law.
That is not a criticism of the Bill. I do not want an annual report so as to be able to point the finger at the hon. Member for Stourbridge, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge or others in the House and say, "Clause 4 is faulty; you didn't make clause 6 tight enough." In my opinion, the purpose is to examine the measures both in the Bill and in other legislation.
I do not want to have to table a series of questions to the Minister to find out how many people have been placed on the list kept under section 1, including those placed on it provisionally, or how many people initiated appeal procedures, the average time taken to confirm the inclusion of an individual or the time elapsing between the commencement of appeal proceedings and their determination by the tribunal.
I have tabled a few questions this Session; if one tables too many, the immediate criticism by some Departments is that one is wasting £400 per question, simply by asking them. It may be cheaper in the end for the Government to produce a comprehensive report, rather than depending on hon. Members asking questions.
Moreover, if in the absence of the new clause I ask those questions, I will get only a little part of the picture. What concerns me more, and what the new clause does not deal with sufficiently, is clause 9 and the tribunal. The tribunal is connected with clauses 1 to 4, which the new clause is about, and represents an important part of the Bill. There is a schedule to deal with setting it up, although I shall not talk about its detailed operation now, as that might be out of order.
Under clause 9, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations relating to all aspects of the functioning of the tribunal—who may have leave to appeal, obtaining medical reports on people who appear before it, the rules governing who may appear on behalf of the parties, whether lawyers, Queen's Counsel or friends of individuals may appear, and the awarding of costs or expenses.
The Minister may say, "Don't worry about the fact that the new clause does not have anything about getting an annual report on the generality of cases before the tribunal. You may not know this, but the Council on Tribunals"—or some tribunal Act, of which I am unaware—"insists that all tribunals produce an annual report on their activities." That may be so, and it may be good and sufficient to give hon. Members, if we find the report, an overview of the final results of the Bill.
I am not simply asking for information on how many people the Secretary of State has placed on the list, or how long it has taken the Secretary of State to come to a determination; I am asking for information on the ultimate conclusion of cases, who has appealed and how long it has taken to do so, the verdict at the end, and also for an overview of the arguments that are presented to the tribunal—which ones the tribunal finds persuasive, and which it finds are a load of tosh, used by people who are trying it on. We need to know those outcomes.
We often have to pass legislation not because we have found that a previous Act is wrong or full of technical errors, but because the courts are doing things that we did not expect. The interpretation of legislation by courts and tribunals often catches Governments by surprise. It is fair for me, as a former Home Office Minister, to make that point. The Minister of State, Home Office, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench at the moment, would confirm, in a totally non-political way, that, even with the best legislation that any Government pass, whether it comes from the Home Office or from other Departments, one can suddenly find that the courts have not interpreted it exactly as Ministers or the rest of the House thought they would. In Committee, we heard references to Pepper v. Hart, and those may be valid, but the courts will often conclude that, irrespective of what Members of Parliament have said, the legislation is clear—and clearly different from what we expected.
The new clause is an important step in the right direction, but it would not give us that complete overview. Even if the Lord Chancellor publishes a separate report on what the tribunals do, we also need information about the regulations that the Secretary of State makes under clause 9, and why he has made them.
The Minister may say that it is up to alert Members of Parliament to spot the legislation that the House is voting through. No doubt, over the next few months, regulations will be laid under the Bill and we shall have a chance to spot them on the Order Paper, and therefore we should know what is going on. However, I make a plea to the Minister to think again, because, as we can see from the Bill, the protection of children is a highly complex matter.
I have had to reread the Hansard reports of our proceedings in Committee several times just to grasp what was going on at the time, because the details were very complicated. I pay tribute to all the members of the Committee not just for the important changes that they made to the Bill, but for understanding the arguments that were advanced and the effects that the changes would have on the Bill.
Child care law is complicated, and it is not all in the Bill. The Bill interacts with the Children Act 1989, and also amends the Education Reform Act 1988. My criticism of the new clause is that it fails to deliver enough. If I wanted a proper report to Parliament, I would want a chapter from the Department of Health, giving the information that my hon. Friend has asked for in the new clause; a chapter from the Department for Education and Employment, giving its view on how it has been operating its part of the Bill and identifying any problems and trends that have been detected, the number of teachers who have been struck off, and the number of people who have not been allowed to be employed as teachers; and a little bit from the Home Office.
I do not think that I would be breaching any of the rules of the House if I said that the Minister has ready access to advice from those three Government Departments right now. If he can be given advice on the Bill by them all today—he rightly requires back-up in the Chamber—there is no point in new clause 2 requiring a response from only one Secretary of State. If we publish a report, it should have input from the various Departments that have advised the Minister on the Bill and think that they have a locus and some ownership of it.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has raised in my mind a problem that we have not identified hitherto. That thought was sparked off by his reference to the DFEE and what, until now, has been known as List 99, with which, sad to say, I am over-familiar. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a problem in bridging the gap between overall figures, which may or may not tell us much, and individual cases? In this matter, more than in others, it is individual cases that matter. In trying to categorise and group people together for the purpose of analysis or drawing policy conclusions, one can run into considerable difficulties. There is a balance to be struck between looking at the overall figures to draw conclusions and paying attention to each individual tragedy.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right. If we ask parliamentary questions, we may get a pile of statistics that tell us little. If the Minister accepts the new clause and we have a report in 18 months' time, I have no idea how many people will have been placed on the list under clause 1, provisionally or otherwise.
What will the ball park figures be? There may be a dozen, 100, 200 or even 1,000. Some of those numbers would be surprisingly low; 1,000 may be shockingly high—although those who work in the professions may say that that is only the tip of the iceberg and there are a lot more. I have no idea. If 1,000 people are placed on the list, should we be horrified or should we say, "My God, we are only scratching the surface. There must be 10,000 abusers and we have only 1,000 on the list"? I do not know.
When we debated the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill a couple of weeks ago, the most helpful briefing I received was one from the National Criminal Intelligence Service which had been taken off the internet. It gave the figures, but it also gave the trends. For example, it said that violence was moving from inside grounds to outside.
Similarly, in an annual report on this Bill, I would want to know the figures, but I would also want to know the opinion of Ministers or others with a legitimate view on whether 1,000 people having been placed on the list in new clause 2(a) is a good figure, whether the trend is downwards and whether 90 to 95 per cent. of offenders are caught. The report should contain similar figures from the Department for Education and Employment and an analysis. The report should also have Home Office input, including conviction figures on those who refuse to comply with the requirements in clause 9. Conviction rates may be low under that clause, but we should have the figures from the Home Office.
11 am
The new clause should also contain a report from the NCIS, which runs the most effective anti-paedophile unit


in the world. Members of Parliament can obtain information on the working of legislation through parliamentary questions and from departmental reports. The annual report from the NCIS contains some statistics about the crackdown on paedophiles and child abusers, alongside information about its work against drug dealers and terrorists and other vile criminals. Some of that information may touch on the workings of the Bill.
However, it would be preferable in the era of joined-up government—I am not making a political jibe, because the Government boast about that—to have a report that pulled together those elements and others that I have not thought of. For example, the report could contain a chapter by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the operation of the tribunal and the trends that have been noticed. There could be chapters from the NCIS, the Home Office and the Department of Health.
New clause 2 would provide for a one-off report in 18 months' time, and it does so because my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has tried to give the Government the least cause to reject the new clause. If the new clause had requested a comprehensive report every year, the Minister would have said that it was too expensive and that Ministers had better things to do than to sit in a Cabinet Sub-Committee drawing up annual reports. So that it is not rejected, the new clause is modest and does not ask for too much. However, it has asked for so little that it might not be worth doing and the Government might reject it on the ground that such a report would not tell us enough.
The interdepartmental working party on children could be the mechanism to produce the information that we seek. We do not want the working party to reveal any secrets about the Government's intentions, but we should have a report that lets us know the Government's thinking. An annual report would be much better than a one-off report which could give us only a snapshot view; an annual report could give the trends and show how the legislation was bearing down on those who abuse children.
The Bill, although not perfect, will be as effective as any other measure in tackling child abuse and will have some impact. However, I am also certain that the people who abuse children will begin to find ways around it. The Department of Health will have to try to plug those escape routes, and Parliament should be able to monitor them so that we can later determine what further legislation may be necessary.
That is not a criticism of the Bill; but abusers are clever, nasty people who will try other ways of contacting children to commit the offences that too many of them are currently committing. The benefit of an annual report is that it would give the Government a chance to let us know what is happening in the working group considering ways to prevent unsuitable people from working with children. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about the group's progress.
The Bill is an important attempt to deal with a significant aspect of the problem, but the working group has recommended an integrated system for identifying people unsuitable for work with children in England and Wales. It suggests a central access point, sometimes called a one-stop shop, to the integrated system. People who should not be allowed to work with children should be identified in advance.
The working party is considering what sort of ban should be imposed. All those people who have committed specified criminal offences—and we need to know exactly which offences—are already excluded by virtue of List 99 or included on the consultancy index held by the Department of Health. The working party has suggested going further than the Bill and making it a criminal offence for a person deemed unsuitable to apply for, accept or continue work with children. Access should be allowed to all those who, by virtue of section 120 of the Police Act 1997, are authorised to countersign applications for criminal record certificates by those wanting to work with children. That would cover all those registered to receive criminal record checks in relation to working with children, including those registered to receive enhanced criminal record checks.
If the Minister tells us that we do not need the new clause, I hope that it will be because the Government intend to publish a report on a non-statutory basis that covers the wider issues hinted at by the hon. Member for Stourbridge.
My final point concerns legal aid and the Government's statement that legal aid issues cannot be included in the Bill because they are having a review of legal aid and people affected by the Bill may or may not qualify for legal aid, depending on the outcome of the review.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see any possible connection between legal aid and the terms of the new clause. There is a degree of proportionality that must be observed in saying why a clause should include something that it does not. There are limits and those limits have been reached.

Mr. Maclean: I entirely accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was suggesting that there should be a report to Parliament—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not engage in further repetition. If he does, I shall be minded to quote the terms of Standing Order No. 42.

Mr. Maclean: I should not challenge your rulings in any circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hope that the Minister will not reject the new clause out of hand as being too narrow, too expensive or too much of a commitment to a measure that it will be too early to judge in 18 months' time. I shall be disappointed if he does not say that he intends to pull together all Departments concerned with working with children and bearing down on paedophiles and others who abuse children. I hope that he will present a comprehensive report to the House, or publish it, so that hon. Members may have access to information and statistics. Access to the views of Departments, officers, Ministers, the NCIS and others on how legislation, including the Bill, is working for the benefit of children is also important if we are to decide whether further measures are necessary in due course.

Mr. Tony McNulty: The debate has been very interesting and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) should be congratulated. I am pleased to be a sponsor of the Bill, but, having read the
Standing Committee's deliberations, equally pleased not to have sat on the Committee. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is a far more esteemed member of the Friday club than a comparatively new Member such as myself, and he was right to say that there is a tendency to exaggerate what is done in some mystical half hour on a private Member's Bill in Committee. In this case, however, the Bill is all the better for the deliberations upstairs, and issues that I raised on Second Reading were well discussed there. The Committee is to be congratulated on its work.
I was provoked to rise because what I am about to say I will not be able to say often. It is that I broadly agree with almost all that was said by the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border.

Mr. Forth: Withdraw!

Mr. McNulty: I thought that that was such a nice thing to say, and that I would have so little opportunity ever to say it, that I should put it on the record. The right hon. Gentlemen were right to say that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge did us a service by moving the new clause, and they have eloquently outlined sufficient flaws in the Bill to require the Minister not to dismiss it out of hand. Given the complex, nasty and horrible side of what we are trying to prevent, there should be scrutiny and monitoring across Departments in a way that might not be appropriate to other Bills.
Both right hon. Gentlemen also picked up on the 18 months element. I thought of intervening, but did not because they waxed so lyrical and eloquent. The new clause suggests a report within 18 months on the first 12 months of implementation of the Act. To suggest that we could discern any trend or pattern from the first 12 months of the Bill's operation would not be entirely correct.
Much of what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said about having an annual review and continued monitoring, with some cross-departmental involvement, showed us how we should proceed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) has not claimed that the Bill is a panacea which will end abuse or prevent people from achieving positions that they should not hold, but it will contribute to a wider legislative framework and interact with other laws. That interaction, including with subsequent laws, should be covered by any review or monitoring.
11.15 am
Like the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, I am not entirely sure that the slab of statistics outlined in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the new clause would have any real meaning. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, there is, for example, a split between the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. The DOH list covers a plethora of areas in which people who should not be allowed near children may work with them. Matters are not as clear cut as they are for, say, working in a nursery or as a teacher, which are dealt with by List 99. We would need a

breakdown far longer than the National Criminal Intelligence Service list of hooligan offences, which we touched on in a previous Friday club meeting.
The raw statistics alone would not be sufficient. However, I hope that we shall not throw out the essence of the new clause. In some senses, we should go further, and the three Departments referred to—Health, Education and Employment, and the Home Office—should be hooked on to the Bill, and should scour all areas of activity in their wider work with children, as well as monitoring, evaluating, reviewing and analysing in a far greater way. That is not suggested in the new clause. We could then see how the broad legislative framework was dealing with what the Bill seeks to do in its small way—preventing people who seek to abuse our children from achieving relevant positions.
If, therefore, we can accept what was said by those whom, for this morning alone, I shall term my two right hon. Friends across the Chamber about both the failings of the new clause and the service done by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in trying to tease out what will happen on monitoring and evaluation, the Bill will be all the better for it.

Mr. Lansley: To echo one point made by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), it is well understood, not least by those of us who sat on the Standing Committee, that the Bill is not a panacea. It is one more brick in an as yet insufficient wall to protect children. It is incumbent on us to recognise the sterling work of various organisations, not least the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in its "full stop" campaign. It is clear to us all that, partly for the reasons adduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), those who wish to abuse children often seek to evade statutory measures. The vigilance and culture that we seek to inculcate in society are tremendously important.
The debate has illustrated the reasoning behind new clause 2, which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). There have been arguments of two kinds. First, it is argued that the new clause is insufficiently wide ranging. Secondly, it is argued that it is so narrowly drafted as to serve an insufficient purpose. Neither is true.
Many hon. Members have suggested that the new clause should cover a wider range of factors—I mentioned one in an intervention—or that the report should be annual. Neither suggestion is appropriate. Clearly, if the report is to give rise to a wider understanding of statutory protection for children and the way in which statutorily regulated organisations ensure that persons guilty of misconduct towards children and who are unsuitable to work with children are prevented from doing so, it would be far from sufficient if it were narrowly focused on the operation of the legislation.
The Bill is not an all-encompassing measure to protect children, but a further step forward. It would change the Department of Health list and put it on a statutory basis, but, in other respects, it would simply co-ordinate and make more accessible other lists, including List 99 and the Police Act 1997 list. It would be difficult to broaden the scope of the Bill to make it the motor for an annual review of the process of protecting children.
I would reinforce some of the arguments made in the debate, but I do not necessarily endorse the view that the new clause should be different. From time to time,


the House loses the broader perspective on the rights and protection of children. When the Select Committee on Health conducted its inquiry into children who were looked after by local authorities, we came across an existing statutory responsibility on the Department to report on such children. That obligation had not been met. One of the most stinging criticisms made by the Select Committee concerned the fact that that report should have been provided.
I am reminded of a military analogy—the armed services use "fire and forget" missiles. The House must never think that it is on a fire-and-forget operation when scrutinising legislation, not least when the task is as important as the protection of children. On the interlocking sets of responsibilities between Government Departments and different aspects of legislation, it would be far preferable for Ministers to encourage an annual debate on the rights of children and their protection, rather than to institute a statutory responsibility on a Department to produce a report at a given date.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has been listening attentively to our debate at various points this morning. Over the years, she has made a great effort to promote the rights of children and she might well say that, by focusing on individual legislation, we often miss the need to debate the overall trends and impact of legislation on given groups of people. That is true of children and it is often true elsewhere. For example, the best value system in local government is often best conducted by considering those who are affected, rather than merely the services that are provided. We should start with the children and work from there.
Rather than reject the new clause for being too narrow, we should look to different mechanisms to achieve a regular—perhaps, an annual—examination of the way in which Government measures, both statutory and non-statutory, serve to protect children. Although the new clause does not serve that purpose, it would be useful.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said, we need to know the impact of the legislation in one crucial respect. In its regulatory impact assessment of the Bill, the Department draws our attention to the fact that the consultancy index contains about 750 names. If my memory serves me right, about 7,000 checks are already made on the list each month. In its impact assessment, the Department contemplates an increase to perhaps 1 million checks a year on the list, which is a very large number. If the increase in the number of checks is any measure of the increase in awareness of and use of such a list by statutory bodies following the legislation, we may be talking not of hundreds of names on the list, but of thousands. It is impossible to speculate. For obvious reasons, one hopes that there will be as few as possible—we all hope that relatively few people will be deemed unsuitable to work with children. Equally, all the evidence suggests that non-statutory measures have not resulted in the number of referrals to the list that they should have. A tenfold increase in the number of checks may result in a tenfold increase in the number of referrals.
This is unaccustomed thinking for me, but perhaps we should provide the resources to ensure that the job is done properly rather than consider how the legislation may increase expenditure. The regulatory impact assessment makes it clear that Government Departments intend to meet any costs that arise from the legislation from within their existing provision. I do not dissent, but, if there is a

tenfold increase in the level of activity, including the number of referrals, after the legislation has been enacted for a year or 18 months, either Departments will have to reallocate resources to meet the challenge and deal with it expeditiously or the present time span of four weeks for a decision to be made about a referral to the list will stretch to a longer time. It is important that the pressure on the system does not result in a great extension in the length of time that such decisions take, and people should not be included on the list provisionally as an expedient until their case is decided.
The arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge when moving the new clause remind us of some of the pressures that might result from the legislation. Many people may be placed on the list provisionally. It is important that the provisional section is not unduly large if the list is to be a device for protecting the interests of children.
In such circumstances, the rights of the individuals concerned would be abridged if their cases were not determined speedily. Furthermore, the number of people on the list who initiate appeal procedures will be a clear indication not only of whether the legislation is giving rise to difficulties for individuals but, because the tribunals will in many respects be a judicial process, of whether it is working well in legal terms.
There are particular reasons for wanting to know what the impact of the legislation will be at a defined moment, but it does not follow that one needs to know about it every year. We are dealing with a step change. There is every reason to suppose that the number of referrals to and checks on the Department of Health consultancy index will rise dramatically. That is what we need to see and we need to work out the implications.
11.30 am
I have two final points. The first relates to an important aspect of the initial report sought by new clause 2. We are dealing with statutorily regulated bodies, often in the public sector. We are changing from a non-statutory to a statutory obligation, and making it an offence not to refer persons. As a former civil servant, I am only too well aware that, when the Government are placed under an obligation, they sometimes not only meet it, but go too far. It is important that we ensure by early review of the implementation of the legislation that the guidance that Ministers issue is working in Departments and producing an appropriate, rather than an excessive, number of referrals. Given the sanctions involved and the implications of being placed on the list, the public sector should not treat referral as a matter of routine or a tick box operation. It must be done carefully and with justifications given throughout the process, or the rights of individuals will be abridged.
The second point concerns reports from tribunals. I am no expert on tribunals, but from my knowledge of other tribunals—particularly school admission tribunals—I do not recall any provision under the Tribunal and Inquiries Act 1992 for them routinely to provide reports. I recall, because I think that I read it, a report from the Council on Tribunals, but that impinges not on the merits of the issues brought before tribunals, but on their conduct and the training provided to those who sit on them. It is peculiarly important that this tribunal should involve appropriate training and qualification. Although it is not


mentioned specifically in the report proposed by new clause 2, I hope that in so far as the Minister is responding to the sense as well as the letter of the debate, he will ensure that the review ensures appropriate training, particularly in respect of the lay panel members. I support new clause 2.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Several hon. Members have made important and helpful contributions to this useful debate. I welcome with open arms the new converts to transparency and openness among Opposition Members. It may be unhelpful, given the spirit of compromise that has dominated our proceedings, but some of us wonder where they were for the past 20 years.

Mr. Maclean: In government.

Mr. Hutton: Precisely, but without results. None the less, we welcome the sinners' repentance and we welcome them to the cause of openness and transparency.
New clause 2 is about providing information to Parliament about the operation of the list of those considered unsuitable to work with children and the work of the tribunal, both of which are key parts of the Bill that were amended in Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) about the way in which the Committee went about its work. The Bill now strikes a better balance between a proper regard for fundamental civil liberties and the need to ensure that we provide maximum protection for children from people who might harm them. In particular, the new opportunities for those who have been provisionally listed to appeal to the tribunal in clause 4 have strengthened the Bill's safeguards without weakening one of its central purposes: allowing the Department of Health to keep an accurate, comprehensive list on a proper statutory basis of people whose behaviour has harmed a child or placed one at risk of harm.
I assure Opposition Members that the Department intends to deal with referrals in a timely and efficient manner. The nine-month limit will not become the norm. That was never our intention. We aim to deal with referrals for inclusion on the list as quickly as possible so that people know where they stand and so that the list can serve the purpose for which it has been properly set up.

Mr. Hammond: The Minister said that the Government would deal with referrals as quickly as possible. That does not tell us much. Can he assure the House that the Department will set internal targets for the time taken to deal with referrals and test itself against them?

Mr. Hutton: Yes, we will. We want to ensure that the system is efficient and effectively operated and to avoid undue delay. The purpose of maintaining the list would be compromised if those problems crept in.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) for her constructive and helpful attitude to new clause 2, the intention and spirit of which I welcome. She spelled out one or two problems with it. I agree that it would be unwise to include it, for the reasons that she gave.
I confirm that we will look carefully at how best we can provide regular information to Parliament about the operation of the new statutory list. However, there is no reason why hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, cannot table parliamentary questions on all the matters covered by new clause 2. I assure the House that we intend to be as open as possible about the new arrangements, given the widespread concern across the House about the importance of ensuring that children are properly protected from harm at the hands of abusers.

Mr. Forth: The Minister is trying to be helpful, but it is asking us to extend our normal credulity when he says that, instead of a regular report, we should rely on the random tabling of parliamentary questions by assiduous Members. That is a new doctrine. Instead of the Government or their agencies reporting freely and openly to Parliament, we are to wait for Members to table questions. Given the Government's recent record of timeliness and openness in answering them, I do not accept that as a credible approach.

Mr. Hutton: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he has misunderstood. I said that we were trying both to improve the spread of and access to information about this part of the Government's work, as well as responding fully to any parliamentary questions that hon. Members might wish to table. The two things are not exclusive. I am sure that he has never tabled a random parliamentary question.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for the Minister's attitude to new clause 2. Will he confirm that, when he says "we" intend to be as open as possible and "we" will publish information, he is speaking not only for his ministerial capacity in the Department of Health, but for Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office?

Mr. Hutton: Yes. When I say "we", I am referring to the Government as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) raised several questions. He and, I think, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned the information published about the work of tribunals. The Council on Tribunals publishes each December an extensive statistical report on the work in the previous year of a variety of different tribunals. It gives details on the number of tribunals in each area, statistics on the number of cases before them and the number handled, with or without a hearing. There is an existing mechanism for publicising information about the work of tribunals. This tribunal would be included in that statistical digest.
Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), asked about the Department's current list, the consultancy index. There are nearly 900 people on it. Under the scheme, we receive between 12 and 15 referrals a month of people who should be included on that list. Each month, we carry out not 7,000, but 14,000 checks. I hope that those figures provide the House with better particulars about the existing arrangements.
We do not underestimate the difficulties or the extent to which abusers of children seek ways to avoid mechanisms for protecting children, but, by common


consent, the Bill is a significant step forward and will provide children with better safeguards. As I said, we shall ensure that the House is kept properly informed about the operation of the legislation and the Government's continuing work to deny abusers access to children.

Mr. Hammond: The Minister's answer to this question will be important to me in deciding how to proceed with the new clause. Will he assure me that if I or other hon. Members seek to obtain the information listed in new clause 2 through parliamentary questions, that information will be provided and those questions will not receive the standard answer that the information is not collated centrally or is available only at disproportionate cost?

Mr. Hutton: The whole point about the list is that it is operated by the Department of Health, so it is entirely our responsibility to collect and retain the information. If the hon. Gentleman were to table the appropriate parliamentary question, we would try, as we are required to do, to answer it as fully as we possibly could. I certainly invite the hon. Gentleman to table such a question. I would always be happy to correspond with him about those issues in detail and, if he thinks it appropriate, to place that correspondence in the Library of the House.
This has been a helpful, useful debate. I understand the spirit and the purpose behind the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but, for the reasons already given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, it would be unwise to include it in the Bill. I hope that I have given the assurances that many hon. Members have sought in the debate, and that the hon. Gentleman will therefore feel comfortable in withdrawing his new clause.

Mr. Hammond: I thank the Minister for his comments.
I am sorry that he felt it necessary to spoil the mood of consensus, and I assure him that we need take no lessons on transparency and openness from him because he talks a good game, but there is precious little evidence that the Government are putting their rhetoric into practice. However, I thank him for his willingness carefully to consider how to ensure that appropriate information will be made available.
I was a little disappointed that my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) were somewhat critical of new clause 2. It did not escape my notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who said at the beginning of his remarks that he was critical of my new clause, gave one ground for criticism, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, who said at the outset that he was supportive of the new clause, went on to give two grounds on which he objected to it. That lesson will not be lost on me.
I understand the valid points that have been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst argued eloquently for the need for annual reports on the operation of the measure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border suggested that the new clause might need to be broadened to include information from other Departments.
In framing the new clause, my attention was focused on the need to assess the impact of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)

described as a step change. A single report of information would allow me to assess the Bill's impact in producing that step change.

Mr. Maclean: I intervene to save me from having to make further remarks at the end of this comprehensive debate. Will my hon. Friend urge the Minister to study the reports published by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which is a quasi-tribunal and, in its report, not only gives statistics, such as the number of cases handled, but gives an overview of trends, and offer recommendations and suggestions for the future? Through my hon. Friend, I urge the Minister to adopt that model as a means of reporting on how the Bill and other child care legislation progresses.

Mr. Hammond: I am certainly happy to urge the Minister to take note of my right hon. Friend's comments, and I am sure that he will do so.
I sense that the House views this issue as worthy of further consideration. There may be arguments for having annual reporting requirements and for extending them beyond the rather narrow remit that I have suggested in my new clause, and I suspect that those arguments will be considered in another place.
In the meantime, the Minister's implication that I could serve my immediate purpose by seeking information on a one-off basis through written questions is greatly reassuring. That satisfies my purposes, but it may not go far enough to satisfy the concerns that my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed. Perhaps those will be dealt with in another place.
I am persuaded by the weight of the arguments that I have heard, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

INCLUSION IN LIST ON REFERENCE TO SECRETARY OF STATE

Ms Shipley: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 1, line 16, leave out
'any of the following conditions is fulfilled'
and insert
'there is fulfilled—

(a) any of the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below; or
(b) the condition mentioned in subsection (2A) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in page 1, line 17, after 'conditions' insert
'referred to in subsection (1)(a) above'.
No. 35, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
'(e) that information has come to light such that the organisation would have dismissed him had it been aware of the information at the time.'.
No. 21, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
'(2A) The condition referred to in subsection (1)(b) above is that—



(a) in circumstances not falling within subsection (2) above, the organisation has dismissed the individual, he has resigned or retired or the organisation has transferred him to a position within the organisation which is not a child care position;
(b) information not available to the organisation at the time of the dismissal, resignation, retirement or transfer has since become available; and
(c) the organisation has formed the opinion that, if that information had been available at that time and if (where applicable) the individual had not resigned or retired, the organisation would have dismissed him, or would have considered dismissing him, on such grounds as are mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above.'

No. 37, in page 2, line 19, leave out
', if he thinks fit,'.
No. 22, in page 3, line 9, after '(2),' insert '(2A),'.
No. 24, in clause 3, page 3, line 16, after 'above' insert
', or the condition mentioned in section 2(2A) above,'.
No. 34, in page 3, line 22, leave out
', if he thinks fit,'.
No. 27, in clause 13, page 9, line 43, after '(2)' insert
', or the condition mentioned in subsection (2A),'.

Ms Shipley: The amendments deal with a point that came up in Committee, with which it was not possible to deal then. It related to the need to ensure that the ability to refer names to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the Department of Health list was not limited to more or less the immediate circumstances and timing of a person's dismissal, resignation, retirement or transfer, when there was no information available to the employer to suggest that there were grounds that would justify reference. Accordingly, the amendments will permit reference where such further information subsequently becomes available, but without requiring child care organisations automatically to review all past cases.
That effect is achieved as follows: amendments No. 19 and 20 are paving amendments for amendment No. 21, and amendments Nos. 22, 24 and 27 are consequential to amendment No. 21. The latter provides that the capacity to refer names to the Secretary of State extends to circumstances where, after the dismissal, resignation, retirement or transfer of an individual, it becomes apparent to a child care or other organisation that, had the relevant information been available at the time, it would have dismissed that person, or considered dismissing him or her, on the grounds of misconduct that harmed a child or put a child at risk of harm. Referrals made on that basis will be dealt with on exactly the same basis as other referrals made under clause 2.
The amendments lay down no time limits because, as experience has sadly demonstrated, in some cases it could be many years before evidence of misconduct became available. Such delay does not make such cases any less serious, and there seems no reason why they should not be acted on if there are sufficient grounds.
In the older cases, the Secretary of State must, under the duty imposed on him by clause 2(3), have particularly careful regard to the quality of the relevant evidence before deciding whether it may be appropriate to include the individual in the departmental list. Thereafter, under clause 2(6), he will need to be satisfied that the

organisation has reasonably concluded that the individual is guilty of the alleged misconduct and unsuitable to work with children. If such cases came before the tribunal, no doubt it would also consider them carefully in the same way.
If the Secretary of State is satisfied under clause 2(3) that the reference should be accepted for consideration, there seems no reason why the ordinary clause 2 procedure for provisional listing should not apply to those cases, as to others.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Hammond: Amendment No. 19 is indeed important. It addresses an aspect that aroused considerable concern in Committee—an aspect which, I think that it is fair to say, members of the Committee were not aware of as a problem until part of the way through their deliberations. Essentially, it deals with the situation where new information becomes available after the event—the situation where an employee is dismissed by, or resigns from, an organisation or is moved on into a position that is not, in the Bill's definition, a child care position, without there being any suggestion or any knowledge at the time that that dismissal, resignation or promotion was within the scope of the referral requirements in the Bill. Then—perhaps, as the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) said, very many years later—information emerges that shows matters in a different light.
Sadly, that is frequently the way in which such cases develop. In the past few years, in the London borough of Lambeth, information has gradually come to light to suggest that, over a period of very many years—perhaps decades—systematic abuse has been carried on by employees of that borough. It is only now, perhaps, that the people responsible are being traced and identified.
The cases in north Wales, which I believe shocked everyone in the country when they came to light a few years ago, and in relation to which police investigations are on-going, also show that it can take many years—perhaps decades—to unravel the full truth of what has happened. It is likely that such referrals will not be a rare and unusual occurrence; indeed, they could make up a very significant percentage of total referrals.
Amendment No. 21, the key amendment in the group, goes a long way towards addressing that issue, but some questions arise. The hon. Member for Stourbridge did not deal with the issues that have been playing on my mind. Perhaps, when I have explained what they are, she or the Minister will offer some thoughts to the House on those issues.
I confess that I am not a lawyer. Perhaps "confess" is not the word; maybe, given the current mood, I should proclaim from the rooftops that I am not a lawyer. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the proposals. The first question in my mind is whether the provision of a totally open-ended arrangement, which would allow a person effectively to remain in jeopardy of a referral for ever, falls within the concept of some kind of limitation on jeopardy which, as I understand it, as a layman, is one of the principles of our legal system. I shall leave it to others who are more knowledgeable in such areas to address that issue.
The issues that bother me relate to the effectiveness of a referral under the amendment. Is it intended—as I took it to be when I first read the amendment—that a person


placed on the list as a result of a retrospective referral would suffer the same disabilities and be dealt with in the same way as any other person placed on the list?
Clause 7 addresses itself to an organisation that is proposing to offer child care employment to an individual; and it requires that organisation, at the point in time when it is considering offering such employment to an individual, to check that that individual is not on the list. If the individual is on the list, it requires that organisation not to offer that individual employment.
The situation will be different in the case of retrospective referrals, where the individual in question may have—in most cases, probably will have—moved on to other employment, perhaps in a child care position. By the time that such information comes to light, that individual may be working in a position of trust—a child care position—giving him or her access to vulnerable children. He or she may have been employed in that position for 10 to 15 years, apparently without incident, and then, as a result of the coming to light of information relating to a former employment, that person might be referred to the Secretary of State and their name included in the list.
What would happen next? Must the Secretary of State inform the current employer of the person in question? Must the person in question inform his current employer? What is the status of his employment? Will he be allowed to continue in that current position, as though his name had not been included in the list? On the face of it, that must be the case; there is no mechanism in the Bill to require a person, on being included in the list retrospectively, to be dismissed from a position of responsibility in relation to children.
There is nothing that I can see that would make it an offence to continue employing a person in such a position. Even if an employer became aware that that person had been entered on the list and decided of his own volition, regardless of any requirement on him in the Bill, to dismiss that person, it is not clear to me—of course, I am not an expert on employment law—whether the employer would be within his legal rights to dismiss a person who had worked for 10 or 15 years without incident, merely as a result of information coming to light about something that had happened much earlier in that person's life.
We need to understand the effect of a person's retrospective inclusion on the list. If, as I suspect, the Bill as drafted would not provide that such a person had to be dismissed, we would end up with an anomalous and potentially unsatisfactory situation. A known paedophile could be allowed to continue in child care employment because the information took some years to come to light. It seems that there is a problem there. It would be widely perceived as unacceptable that, once a person had been deemed suitably offensive to be included on the list, there was a possibility of him or her continuing in employment that gave access to vulnerable children. In my view, it would not be acceptable if such a retrospective inclusion had force to it only when that person sought to move on to seek new employment.
I raise these questions in pursuit of information. I do not quite understand how the amendment is intended to address the issues that I have raised within the structure of the Bill. I look forward to some answers to my questions. That is not to say that I do not welcome the measures that have been put forward by the hon. Member

for Stourbridge; it is important that there should be the provision that she seeks to put into the Bill. I am merely anxious that it should have some teeth. I want it to be effective in ensuring that, where someone's misdeeds come to light retrospectively, they are dealt with. I want that person to labour under the same effective disabilities as people who are dismissed in circumstances where their unsuitability for child care employment is known at the time of dismissal.

12 noon

Ms Margaret Moran: I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), and especially No. 21. In a sense, it epitomises all that was best about the way we worked when considering the Bill in Committee. Constructive criticism of parts of the Bill and cross-party co-operation were evident throughout our discussions. The amendment arises because of intensive discussion of various clauses, which revealed that there was a potential loophole that we had not foreseen and we needed to close. All members of the Committee are to be congratulated on the way in which they identified potential difficulties and potential risks to children. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated especially on the constructive way in which she introduced the amendment, which was revealed to be necessary at quite a late stage in Committee.
I beg your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be allowed to take this opportunity to thank a number of people who were extremely helpful when we were examining the Bill in Committee and thereafter. Many wiser, if not older, Members and Officers of the House have been extremely helpful in advising many of us who are novices when it comes to private Members' Bills. I hope that they feel that their reward is a much better Bill.
The Bill is very much a balance between civil liberties and the rights of children. If it is perceived sometimes to be on the side of the rights of children, we make no apologies for that. It is a difficult and delicate balance to strike. If we are in this place for anything as parliamentarians, it is to protect the most vulnerable. That is the balance that we must always strike.
The clause is crucial in ensuring that we block a loophole that could enable those seeking to abuse their position of power in respect of children to gain employment at a much later stage once further information has become available. The Bill is very much a building block. It will not provide the comprehensive protection for children that we all seek, but it will be one of a series of measures that I know will be introduced by the Government to try to ensure that there is the most comprehensive protection for children that we can provide.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Luton Herald and Post, which is campaigning in my constituency for the rights of children who have been abused. The newspaper has brought to me many examples that have been helpful in identifying possible loopholes in the Bill which need to be identified. I think that it deserves our congratulations. It has provided a fine example of sensitive and responsible journalism.
The amendment is the result of the serious work that was done in Committee. It was said in Committee that concern remained that there were instances where information could come to light at a much later stage


when the person concerned might have ceased to be employed in a child care role. The spirit of the Bill is that such cases should be within its ambit, but its drafting meant that that issue could not be addressed at that stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge has consulted widely on closing that loophole. and the amendment is the result.
We must ensure that the ability to refer names is not limited to the immediate time and circumstances of dismissal or resignation, when no information suggesting grounds to justify a referral would be available to the employer. Accordingly, the amendment permits a referral to be made when such information becomes available subsequently.
The amendment does not provide for a time limit. Some hon. Members may be concerned about that, but it is difficult to specify a time limit because information can come to light after many years, as the cases in north Wales, for example, have shown. There may be many years of investigation before the truth of the circumstances of child abuse comes into the public domain. It would therefore be unjust to specify an arbitrary time limit, which could allow those who had previously been involved in child abuse to slip through the net. None of us, in retrospect, could justify that happening.
As no time limit is provided for, the Secretary of State would have to deal with such cases with great sensitivity—the abuse may have taken place some time ago, there may be complications and the investigations may be lengthy. The Secretary of State would have to ensure that there was justice for the person who had been accused, but also, and more importantly, for the children, who may have grown up by the time a case is brought.
The terms under which the Secretary of State would be required to investigate such matters are very important, and we will expect particular care to be taken with the quality of the evidence, which may be quite old. However, the fact that abuse took place a considerable time ago does not lessen its seriousness. Indeed, in many cases it gives it greater import—if there is a chain of incidents that has been recognised only latterly, the passage of time does not lessen the impact of abuse on the children concerned.
As a former council leader, I am all too painfully aware that child abuse can be discovered long after it has occurred, perhaps after rafts of personnel changes in a children's home or because political leadership has changed. Matters that were not brought to light before either professional or—dare I say—political protection was put in place are sometimes revealed only after a long period, when there is a change of staff or of political personnel. It is sometimes hard for people to admit that, but, once such matters have been identified, it is incumbent on all those in positions of authority to ensure that further abuse is prevented and that a referral is made as swiftly as proper investigation allows. That is the essence of the amendment.
I asked the social services department of my local authority whether it had had similar experiences or had similar concerns. It drew to my attention an example from about three years ago. A man had gained employment with the former county council education department as a peripatetic teacher, which gave him access to children's

homes. By chance, the man was spotted outside a school by a former teacher, who remembered that, many years earlier, he had left a teaching post in the county, having been confronted with very serious concerns about his behaviour around young male pupils. That behaviour included hanging around showers, taking the children camping and making special friends with certain children.
When staff in the education department made inquiries outside the county, they found that the man had left his previous employment in similar circumstances and that there had been a repeat pattern. They had been tipped off that he might have held several jobs in schools outside the county and left them in similar circumstances, and their investigations proved that suspicion to be correct. Thus, many years after the original occurrences, it came to light that the man had a history of behaviour that would have made him subject to disciplinary proceedings had he remained in his job. However, he had left those jobs to avoid disciplinary action.
Such a pattern of behaviour is not unusual. It is what Luton's assistant director of social services referred to as a good example of the operation of a "smart" paedophile. That is what the Bill seeks to prevent. In this instance, Luton social services had the opportunity to take action and investigate the man's previous behaviour because he was still employed with them. However, what would have happened if that information had come to light only once the man had resigned from his post and moved elsewhere? That is precisely the problem that the amendment seeks to address.

Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady says that that is precisely the problem that the amendment seeks to address. What is her understanding of what happens to a person in that position once he is uncovered in his new post?

Ms Moran: One would certainly expect that an employer who had taken on someone in good faith, believing him capable and entitled to work with children, but who subsequently discovered that he was not reliable would take disciplinary action under employment law. To do anything else would be deemed negligent. Like the hon. Gentleman, I take pride in the fact that I am not a lawyer, so I cannot give him a definitive answer. Having been an employer responsible for a large number of employees, I expect that serious questions would be asked of the employer who had that information to hand but who continued to allow such a person to work with children. Many such cases would be tested in court, but it would be unusual for an employer to be challenged for taking disciplinary and other action if previous evidence was substantial enough to justify the accusation that the person was not fit to work with children.
This important amendment embodies the hard work done in Committee to identify as many loopholes as possible in order to protect children. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge on tabling it, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Maclean: This is an important group of amendments. I want to speak briefly in support of the amendments of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley). As I was putting together my notes before


the debate, I realised that the amendments that I have tabled, perhaps in a less professional capacity, mirror those of the hon. Lady. I hope that my hon. Friends are not appalled that I have tabled amendments that drastically infringe on civil liberties, but I want some limitations on the extent to which we can go back in time to deal, quite rightly, with those who have probably or possibly been abusing children and have moved on to other employment. If is perfectly right that they should be caught within the scope of the Bill, but I have a few questions about the time limit and about how far one can go back.
Amendment No. 35 is in this group, but I want to say a few words about my other amendment, which is slightly different from the general thrust of the amendments that we have discussed so far. Amendment No. 37 would require the Secretary of State to allow an individual who has been referred to him to comment on the observations of the organisation that so referred him. The justification of the amendment is that an individual should have an automatic right to know what comments his organisation has made about him, given the seriousness of a referral to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the list.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to invite observations from the employee on the information submitted by the organisation when it makes the reference, but not on any subsequent observations that it makes, in particular on the employee's comments. The amendment is intended to help to reduce the likelihood of malicious referrals by employers against which the employee has little redress.
Given the seriousness of a referral to the Secretary of State—and rightly so—should an employee not be able to respond to all the criticisms or allegations made by an employer? We must avoid the situation in which accusations and counter-accusations are made which go back again for a response. We must not spend weeks and weeks on pleas and counter-pleas from the lawyers.

Mr. Hammond: I seem to remember that we discussed this matter in Standing Committee. If my right hon. Friend's amendment were carried, would there not be a danger of a perpetual ping-pong? The Secretary of State is required to invite observations from the individual on information submitted with the reference, but, if he has to submit observations from the individual back to the organisation, and the organisation's observations back to the individual, the process could potentially become a method by which the individual could delay progress in determining the outcome.

Mr. Maclean: As my hon. Friend describes it, that would be the case, but I want to avoid it. I am happy to say that my amendment is a probing one, and is trying to deal with a point in principle. If, as drafted, it would result in a never-ending ping-pong, that is unacceptable and I do not want that. I do not want a ping-pong over five or six months. Perhaps we should impose time limits or require that there should be only two referrals or one claim and counter-claim. I am not sure about that, but I am fairly certain that the present situation may not be entirely fair.
This is a drastic step. If an individual is referred and it sticks, he will be on a nasty blacklist, and rightly so. We may refer to it as the Department of Health list, but we

know what the press and the media will call it: it will be called the perverts list of total unemployables, who will be regarded as the vilest people on this earth. Some of them are the vilest people on this earth, but it is important that people referred for inclusion on the list are allowed to offer some defences. I think that the individual should have a chance to say, "I am sorry; the allegation is not justified. These are the facts." Perhaps it should stop there, rather than bouncing back two or three times.
The only other comments that I wish to make relate to other amendments that I have tabled, but, in a different form, were drafted more ably by the hon. Member for Stourbridge. We have made excellent progress today, and much of what we will discuss before Third Reading—now that we have dealt with new clause 1 and this group of amendments—is technical; but there is an important point of principle. Is there a case for limiting the period for which the clause should apply?
Having read the report of the Committee stage, I concluded that the Government, and the hon. Lady, felt that, although it often takes years for information about misconduct to become available, there was no reason why such information should not be acted on if there were sufficient grounds for action, and if special care was taken in regard to the quality of the evidence in particularly old cases. That is all right as it stands, but I need to know from the Minister what constitutes a particularly old case. Is it five years—a period that was mentioned in Committee—10 years or 15 years?
I also want to know what constitutes special care. The Government say that they wish to act—or the Minister may wish to make his decision—provided that, in a particularly old case, special care is taken to ensure that they get it right. Perhaps this is just a case of loose terminology. We think that we all know what "special care" means, but do the Government intend to provide internal guidelines to deal with particularly old cases, and to ensure that "special care" means exactly that? I should also like to know whether they have made any assessment of the implications for compliance with the European convention on human rights.
Like clause 2, the amendment includes a requirement to refer an individual to the Secretary of State when the organisation concerned
would have considered dismissing him",
as opposed to "would certainly have dismissed him". In England and Wales, before someone is charged with an offence the case is referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, which has its own yardsticks. Those yardsticks may be subjective in some respects, but generally they are fairly objective. Throughout England and Wales, the CPS should operate according to the same yardstick: is there sufficient evidence to justify the bringing of criminal charges? The Bill proposes a different yardstick. Hundreds of organisations—multifarious organisations—must ask themselves, "Would we have considered dismissing this person?"
I see from the Order Paper that an early-day motion has been tabled by hon. Members who are critical of an organisation—it is not involved in child care—that has, in their view, ruthlessly sacked 300 employees at Heathrow for no good reason. Some organisations decide to dismiss staff quickly and ruthlessly, on the basis of slimmer evidence than that used by other organisations. Admittedly, child care organisations operate under fairly


tight criteria, or at least we hope that they do, but some big professional child care organisations may be told by personnel officers or legal advisers that, to satisfy existing regulations relating to the dismissal of staff, if they are considering dismissing staff they must ensure that certain important factors are present—that there are more objective criteria for the consideration of whether dismissal is appropriate.
No doubt, when the Bill is implemented, some of those big organisations with access to information from personnel officers or legal advisers will tell bosses, employees and, indeed, their own personnel officers what should be in their minds. No doubt they will specify the extent of the criminality, or wrongdoing, that would have to be involved before dismissal was a legitimate consideration. That is what I want, and doubtless it is what the Government want. Hundreds of other organisations, however—small organisations, perhaps—will not have access to the same personnel procedures, and will consider dismissal if there is the slightest whiff of a suggestion that an employee has been behaving improperly. It is possible that quite junior staff will say, "You have been up to bad things. We will consider dismissing you." Conversely, the matter may be referred to those higher up in the organisation, and a decision may be taken not to consider dismissal.
I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make. Whereas the Crown Prosecution Service uses the more objective yardstick of whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a decision to prosecute, the provisions would be applied by hundreds—or thousands—of child care organisations, and they might not all apply the same objective yardstick in determining what behaviour merited consideration of dismissal.
As there is no definition of "consideration", various retrospective cases could be referred. In some of them, consideration might have been at board level, where half a dozen people were involved and took a serious decision. However, other cases might have been decided somewhere else, where, after a fleeting few seconds of consideration, those making the decision said, "We'll sack that bloke, because he must be a pervert." Although that would also be consideration, it would be very flimsy consideration, and it might be completely unfair and unjust.
I shall not labour the point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is more legally qualified and a lawyer whom I respect. I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as he would be able to make the point better than I can. It is an important point.
Although I am happy that the amendments should deal with retrospectivity, I am concerned that there should be both a cut-off point and a quality yardstick in determining proper consideration of dismissal.

Mr. Leigh: This is a difficult group of amendments to speak to. No one takes a stronger view than I do of the iniquity of those who indulge in bad behaviour with children. They have to be rooted out, and action must be taken to ensure that they are not put in the proximity of children. I hold that view as strongly as any other hon. Member. However, I am somewhat concerned by the

amendments—although I am probably not so concerned about them that I should like unduly to delay the House or to vote against them. Nevertheless, I feel that it is my duty to sound a warning.
Although we all appreciate that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) is extremely well-intentioned, and that she is trying to make her Bill as watertight as possible, some concerns about civil liberties should be expressed about this aspect of the Bill.
I should give a simple example. An individual works in child care for an organisation and does his job perfectly satisfactorily. There has been no complaint against him or, if there has been one, it has been dismissed as trivial. Subsequently, he is promoted to another part of the organisation; or, without being dismissed, he moves on to another organisation in another part of the country; or he retires.
Then—five, 10, or 20 years later—someone makes an allegation about him. The allegation does not relate to his current job, and cannot be attested to by available witnesses, but deals with something that happened in an organisation for which he worked previously, possibly many years before.
If I describe the matter in those terms, perhaps the House will begin to understand why some hon. Members have some concerns about the provision. Although people living in a free society quite rightly take a very serious view of that type of allegation and seek to protect children, we also believe that one of our duties is to protect innocent people.

Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the circumstances in which information comes to light after many years are more than likely to be in the context of a police investigation? Certainly, the celebrated cases that were quoted in Committee all involved police investigations uncovering information about individuals.

Mr. Leigh: Yes. That may indeed be true. That is why an amendment may be necessary. One can conceive of cases in which the circumstances are clear and the evidence is overwhelming. Equally, however, I have to follow the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). Unfortunately, under the Bill as drafted, we may have to deal with allegations in a court of law. I may be wrong about that, and if so I shall be corrected, but somebody has to sound a note of warning.
As has already been said, there is no limit on the period involved. I understand that in respect of serious allegations that have been tried and tested, but perhaps the Minister should say something about the legal position in respect of the statute of limitations. We have a tried and tested procedure in our common law which has developed over many centuries—that, in dealing with civil matters, there has to be some time limit within which one has to take action. That stipulation, convention or rule has grown up not by chance, but for very good reasons.

Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer—I respect his knowledge and expertise—so he will be aware that the statute of limitations relates to the bringing of a criminal or civil action. That is not what we are discussing here. We are talking about a previous employer referring


someone's name to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the list; so the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the statute of limitations are not strictly applicable.

Mr. Leigh: Of course I am aware of that, but it is applicable. Although we are not talking about a criminal or civil case, the effect of the listing could be very serious for the individual concerned. It could affect his career, his capacity to earn and much else. I take the Minister's point, but I am sure that he agrees that we must be careful about that.

Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the concerns that has been expressed about the Bill is that the process is administrative rather than judicial, and that it is hardly reassuring for the Minister to tell us that the safeguards that would apply if it were judicial do not therefore apply?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend has put that point extremely well. We are dealing with the possibility of serious consequences for an individual under a procedure that is entirely administrative, whereas judicial proceedings in other cases—whether in criminal or in civil law—may result in far less serious consequences for the individual concerned.
I am sure that the Minister will argue that, although there is no time limit, special care will be taken over the quality of evidence, especially in respect of an old case. He has said that the quality of evidence will have to be very clear and that there will have to be sufficient grounds. If that is his case, he needs to tell the House what special care will be taken in respect of matters that are alleged to have taken place many years previously.
Far from the hon. Lady reassuring me, my concern started to grow, particularly when she referred to what may have gone on in scout camps. How can we test evidence that may be extremely old? We may be dealing with an incident that occurred in a scout camp 10 years previously. I may have got it entirely wrong, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will realise that there may be some cause for concern.

Ms Shipley: As the hon. Gentleman was not on the Standing Committee, may I take the opportunity to clarify the matter? Sadly, in my view, the Bill is limited to a prescribed definition of child care, so it does not include the scouts.

Mr. Leigh: I am sorry, but the example of the scouts had already been used. I accept that the definition is limited to child care organisations, but, even without using the example of the scout camp, one can consider situations which, although they may be related to a prescribed child care organisation, may have been ad hoc or taken place years before, and witnesses may have moved on. In such cases, it may be difficult to test the quality of the evidence.
It is so much easier to deal with a recent case. Everything is clearer in people's memories. That is why I am worried. The Minister must reassure the House that the requirement for what he describes as special care and quality of evidence will be rigorously applied.

Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another possible problem? If a long time has elapsed,

it is possible that the organisation that should make the referral under the amendment will have ceased to exist. It would be unfortunate if people could slip through the net for that reason. Perhaps, in future, we should insert a provision to ensure that, if that happened, there would be another mechanism for referring the person to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, approaching the amendment from a different angle. We are talking about old cases, and organisations that may have changed their nature, so there may indeed be practical difficulties that need to be faced. The more we think about very old cases, the more problems crop up. That is why we have the statute of limitations in the ordinary law, and the entire legal process, for good reasons, is very careful about how it deals with old cases.
As with clause 2, amendment No. 21 includes a requirement to refer an individual to the Secretary of State where an organisation "would have considered" dismissing him, rather than "would certainly" have dismissed him. The Government say that the words "would have considered" are a sufficiently serious test to merit an individual's inclusion on the list. When dealing with old cases, we should worry about the use of such phrases, so I hope that there will be further consideration of what that language means.
The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the amendments apply the ordinary clause 2 procedures for provisional listing to delayed cases. The aim is to ensure that, even in such cases, the benefit of the doubt will continue to be given in the interests of children. I can understand that. Children will be protected until the reference is determined.
However, for the individual, the problem of provisional listing is that its consequences are no different from those of permanent inclusion. As a result, any certificate obtained in respect of an individual would disclose the inclusion in the list and no child care organisation would be able to employ him or her.
There is a double, or even a triple worry—not only about how long ago the behaviour took place and about the quality of the evidence, but about the fact that, although somebody is only provisionally listed, presumably because there is some doubt, the consequences are as great as if that person were permanently listed. Some people would argue—as I would, without being an international lawyer—that that aspect could be in contravention of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which states that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I understand the need for provisional listing if a case is current, but some of the cases will be older. Why would provisional listing be needed for a case that was many years old? The Government's lawyers will have advised the Government on the consequences of the legislation in respect of the European Court of Human Rights, but I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
If there is to be no time limit on an individual's placement on the provisional list, will guidelines be issued on what would constitute a reasonable length of time? Will compensation be available to people who are placed


on the provisional list but whom it is not found necessary to place on the full list, especially if they have spent some time on the provisional list?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's suggestion for guidelines is intended to be helpful, but will it be possible to formulate guidelines that will be meaningful, practical and applicable? It is easy to resort to the use of guidelines, but they might not take us any further forward.

Mr. Leigh: I accept my right hon. Friend's strictures. It is easy—especially when the House considers behaviour that it finds horrific—to decide to take action and, when someone expresses concerns about civil liberties, to reassure the House that appropriate guidelines will be issued. The House may then lose interest and pass on to other matters, and we may not be able to have confidence in the guidelines.
The Government have stated that, after Royal Assent to the Bill, they will issue guidance to employers. Assuming that the amendment is accepted, I presume that the Government will also issue guidance to employers on what to do when the behaviour in question took place many years before. It is easy to envisage the difficulties that the Government might have in framing such guidance; it might be a thick document indeed.

Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend referred to the important role that the guidance will play. Does he agree that it would have been helpful if draft guidance had been available during consideration of the Bill? Even at this late stage, it might be helpful if the draft guidance could be made available before the Bill is considered in another place.

Mr. Leigh: That is a good point, and I would be much reassured if we were given some idea of the content of the guidance before the Bill becomes law. We need to know whether the guidance will be adequate and will cover those points that I have mentioned.
I support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, because we must ensure—especially when considering acts that took place many years ago—that individuals have a right of reply at all stages.
I take the point that matters cannot be delayed unduly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said. There cannot be a sort of ping-pong game. However, there need be no undue delay, and I cannot understand why, if we are to recognise a fundamental right for which the House has fought for centuries, there should be no right to face an accuser. That right has been whittled away in many areas and people no longer have the right to cross-examine their accuser. However, there is a fundamental right to reply, even if in writing, against points made against anyone. I cannot see how we can both preserve that fundamental right and achieve what the Bill seeks to do.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those points. Above all, will he reassure the House that extraordinary care will be taken to ensure that people are

not put in undue jeopardy, and reassure us also on the quality of the evidence for cases brought under amendment No. 19?

Mr. Hutton: I welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley). They are very much within the spirit of changes made in Standing Committee. My hon. Friend has listened intently to reservations expressed about the scope of the Bill, including the request of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) to consider whether there is a loophole in the Bill. The Government and my hon. Friend accepted that there was a need to tighten the Bill and the amendments respond fairly to the concerns expressed. I am encouraged by the broadly supportive response to them this morning by Opposition Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran).
I shall try to deal with specific concerns raised this morning, and with the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge addressed two issues. First, he asked about the implications for someone included on the list when already in employment, and he referred to the scope of clause 7. Secondly, he asked what a Secretary of State would do about notifying a current employer about someone's inclusion on the list under the terms of amendment No. 19.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that clause 7 applies to the offering of employment. It does not make it mandatory—nor should it—for an employer to dismiss someone who is on the list. To require that would significantly change the character of the Bill. We never had it in mind that the Bill should encompass that kind of mandatory sanction on employment.
I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South did, that it is pretty well established that an employer is entitled to take into account evidence of misconduct by an employee when deciding whether it is appropriate to continue to employ that person. Any such decision must be taken fully in accordance with employment legislation. Employers should act fairly to give appropriate notice or do anything else required by the existing legislation and the common law relating to contract. There is plenty of evidence in case law to support the suggestion that an employer can act in response to evidence of previous misconduct that directly relates to a person's ability to perform his or her current employment.
I should draw the House's attention to the preliminary report that we published in January on the future work of the interdepartmental ministerial group on preventing unsuitable adults from working with children. We are considering a range of new criminal sanctions that would make it a criminal offence for someone to seek employment if he or she is included on the lists of the Department of Health or the Department for Education and Employment, or to continue or remain in employment once included on those lists.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was rightly concerned about the effect of including someone on the list if we could not directly affect his or her employment when we thought that there was a risk to children. Taken in conjunction with existing employment


law and the range of new criminal offences that we envisage—and for which we are working up the detail—the overall provision will be comprehensive. There should not be any difficulty in dealing with people—I do not know how many there will be—who are included on the list for misconduct that took place a long time ago.

Mr. Hammond: I listened carefully to what the Minister said about employers' ability to take into account misconduct in a previous employment under existing employment law. As I have often said, I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that, once the employee has been in his new employment for a considerable number of years without incident, the ability to take into account previous misconduct must diminish—it is probably equitable that it should.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that measures that would make it a criminal offence for certain people to remain in employment are proposed. The amendment may thus have little bite at the moment, but it would become a paving measure which would have bite once the measures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned came into effect.

Mr. Hutton: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to assume that I am laying down some new principle of employment law; I am not. I am trying to summarise the situation as I understand it. Of course, he is right to say that every case must be decided on the facts. Employers' actions will be judged by the industrial or employment tribunal on the basis of whether they acted fairly in treating that misconduct as sufficient reason for dismissal. That is the existing corpus of employment law and I hope that I am not implying any substantial modification of it—I am not in a position unilaterally to do so. Each case must be decided on its merits. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point: the employer will have to judge the suitability of the employee and whether the evidence of which he has become aware is sufficient to justify dismissal.
We are working up the detail of those criminal proposals. I do not say that they are problem free, as there will be some problems. In particular, we shall have to take into account the fact that any criminal sanctions should apply only when a person is aware that he or she is included on the list.
That is a genuine problem and it is related to the second problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He asked what the Secretary of State would do about notifying the current employer that an employee had been included on the list under the terms of the amendment. There are some genuine practical difficulties. The question assumes that the Secretary of State knows where the person is employed, which may not always be the case. However, if we know the employer, the Secretary of State will notify him or her that a person has been included on the list. The Bill does not require us to do so, but, as a matter of good practice, we would always do that if the information came to our attention.

Mr. Hammond: For information, would the Secretary of State have access to the records of the Contributions Agency, which would be the best method of tracking an employee, who has a single national insurance number throughout his life?

Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question, but I will correspond with the hon. Gentleman

about it. That might be an effective way to track an employee through the system. However, there are some genuine practical difficulties. I am not trying to pretend to the hon. Gentleman or to the House that the legislation is foolproof, and that we can simply press a button to ensure that child abusers are easily rooted out of the system. It will be difficult, as has been acknowledged.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border raked over some concerns that were pretty fully aired in Committee, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), although they were not the subject of his amendments. He mentioned the term, "would have considered dismissing". As I understand it, those words do not appear in his amendments and he is not attempting to amend the Bill in such a way now.
I shall try to deal with those issues briefly by repeating that we shall issue guidance to employers to explain how the legislation will work and to deal with the question of when a name should be referred to the Secretary of State. We can cover such concerns in the guidance.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough should not be so cynical about the ability of guidelines to be constructive and to help employers to pilot their way through the legislation. I accept that the scope of the Bill is considerable. That is why we accept the need to assist employers properly so that they can take the action that the legislation might require of them. I assure the House that the Secretary of State will discharge those responsibilities seriously.
On the rigour of decision making under clause 2, I refer hon. Members to clause 2(3), under which the Secretary of State has a specific function which he will have to exercise fully and carefully. We want to ensure, particularly given the general difficulty of such cases, that the decision-making process used by the Secretary of State is as rigorous, comprehensive and fair as possible to all concerned.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border tabled several amendments, and I should briefly explain why the House should not accept them. I hope that he will understand. Amendment No. 35 duplicates, although not so well, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge. The key amendment is No. 21. As she said, it provides scope to refer names to the Secretary of State in circumstances where it appears to a child care or other organisation that, after the dismissal, resignation, retirement or transfer of an individual, had the relevant information been available, it would have dismissed, or considered dismissing, that person on the grounds that the misconduct harmed a child or put one at risk of harm. As referrals made on that basis will be dealt with on the same basis as other referrals under clause 2, amendment No. 35 is unnecessary and has to some extent been overtaken by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border also tabled amendments Nos. 37 and 34. They would be unhelpful because they would put a rigidity into the system that would not be conducive to good decision making. As drafted, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to exercise some discretion in considering whether to refer back to the parties for observations on the issue raised by a reference. Only when he is satisfied that he has all relevant information from the parties can he make a final decision on inclusion in the list.
The purpose of the words that the right hon. Gentleman wants to delete is to ensure that the Secretary of State does not get caught up an endless round of correspondence with the parties in which no new issues are raised and existing ones are simply regurgitated. Removal of the words would oblige the Secretary of State to refer all correspondence to the other party for further comment regardless of whether any new issues had been raised. There is a risk that we might go around in circles, being unable to come to a decision about inclusion on the list, when all hon. Members have pressed the need for rapid, early decisions. An intended consequence of the amendment would be to make it harder to come to early decisions. We cannot accept it.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked whether people caught by this amendment, which was moved so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, should be exempted from the provisional listing procedures in clause 2. He felt that there might not be an argument for provisional listing in such cases. That is a fundamental point which raises the whole purpose and rationale of the provisional listing procedure. Its purpose is to ensure that, when the information is available and when the Secretary of State considers provisional listing appropriate, we do it. That will prevent people from seeking alternative employment in a child care position. It is an essential piece of the elementary framework of protection that we think that the Bill will provide. If we make an exemption for these admittedly difficult cases, we open the possibility that such people could move around the system, and we would lose them. That would be fundamentally contradictory to the Bill's whole purpose and rationale.
If the hon. Gentleman needs further confirmation—I am sure that he is assiduous in reading about this subject—he need only read Sir William Utting's report on the child safeguards review to find out exactly why we have decided that the Bill needs to include a mechanism for provisional inclusion on the list. That is an essential part of the effective protection that we want to offer.
I cannot recommend to the House the amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, and I am sure that he understands that, but I strongly support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge.

1 pm

Mr. Forth: The best summation that I have come across of the kernel of the problem with which the House has been wrestling lies in the record of the Committee proceedings, and nobody will be surprised to hear that it was given by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I am sorry that he is not present because, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will agree, his contribution was most valuable to the Committee.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said:
We need to be certain that the Bill will catch someone who has been discovered committing wrongdoings long after he has left his job, but I am worried about how far back it is reasonable to go. I am also worried about false memory syndrome. On occasion, it may be difficult to go back very far. From my experience as a teacher, I know that it is relatively easy to mount a defence against the

occasional false allegation that is made by a pupil if the events are fairly clear to oneself and one's colleagues. However, when one goes back further than five years, it is extremely difficult for justice to be done on either side."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 17 March 1999; c. 43.]
That sums up succinctly and elegantly the nature of the problem that we face.
As hon. Members have said during this brief debate, problems and anomalies arise when one starts to go beyond what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) rightly pointed out is the normal philosophy of the statute of limitations, which has served us well for many centuries. The Bill would move away from that and say that it is not only legitimate, but desirable and necessary, to be able to reach much further back into times past, identify misdemeanours from that time which one has reason to believe may be repeated or may, in this case, put children at harm now, and take the appropriate action. That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said in his opening remarks, makes the jeopardy open-ended. We must now try to deal with that difficult problem, which was so well summed up by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.
We are saying that a ghastly event, a long time ago, may never have been repeated, and regardless of the time that has passed since that event, if it now comes to light, it may be desirable to ensure that the individual responsible is debarred from employment, if he or she can be found. That challenges several bases on which we have operated our law for a long time, which is why the matter must be treated with extreme caution.
If people commit one offence that comes to light many years later, the philosophy of the statute of limitations kicks in. In addition, there will be doubt about whether they are likely to repeat the offence. There is also a practical difficulty, which was alluded to a moment ago, about whether they could be found. People who committed such an offence might then be thoroughly ashamed of it, and therefore change their identity and move jobs or location, perhaps several times. Women who committed such an offence could legitimately change their name by getting married. It may then prove to be very difficult to track down those people.
When the Minister was asked whether the national insurance number would be a reliable source of information in this case, I detected from movements off—if I may put it that way—in the Chamber, which the Minister could not see but which were visible to me where I was sitting, that the answer to that question was probably no. The Minister may have already received a definitive answer, and perhaps he can help us before we complete the debate.
The matter is important, because whether the person can be traced is relevant to the practicability of the provision. As, in some cases, a long period will have passed, that is a very significant consideration. Therefore we have a difficult combination of, on one hand, a challenge to some very long-standing legal principles and, on the other, significant practical difficulties.
All that leads me to wonder what the value of the measure will be. Given the many questions that have been asked about the relationship between the current employer and the individual involved; given that, although the Minister has said that changes to the law are coming down the track, we cannot take those into account but must deal


with current law; and given that the Secretary of State, in a sense, is put in the difficult and delicate position of having to judge that it is right, sensible or beneficial to pass on such information, the difficulties are very considerable indeed.
I am not saying that we should not admit the possibility of such a retrospective process taking place. I am simply left wondering whether we have taken sufficient account of the philosophy of the statute of limitations, or of the practical difficulties—to say nothing of the profound effect that such a process is likely to have not just on the individual, but on his or her family.

Mr. Hutton: The right hon. Gentleman again mentions the statute of limitations. I understand his concern, but he may want to be aware that for indictable criminal offences—the more serious sexual offences—there is no statutory time limit on prosecution.

Mr. Forth: I am very grateful for that helpful guidance.
I believe that I have said enough to show that I am uneasy about this approach, which should be monitored more carefully than many other provisions in the Bill that have caused concern. It is worth pondering whether such a matter would emerge as part of the reporting that we debated at length earlier. I hope that sufficient unease has been expressed to cause the promoter and the Minister to give the matter some thought.
The Bill will, of course, go to another place and there will be opportunities for it to be considered there, perhaps in light of some of these considerations. I believe that the difficulties are by no means an insurmountable obstacle, but every Conservative Member who has spoken has said that the matter should be looked at very carefully, and that, if possible, ways should be found to allay our fears, so that vulnerable individuals may be protected without our encroaching unacceptably on the long-standing liberties of individuals.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 1, line 17, after 'conditions' insert
'referred to in subsection (1)(a) above'.

No. 21, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
'(2A) The condition referred to in subsection (1)(b) above is that—

(a) in circumstances not falling within subsection (2) above, the organisation has dismissed the individual, he has resigned or retired or the organisation has transferred him to a position within the organisation which is not a child care position;
(b) information not available to the organisation at the time of the dismissal, resignation, retirement or transfer has since become available; and
(c) the organisation has formed the opinion that, if that information had been available at that time and if (where applicable) the individual had not resigned or retired, the organisation would have dismissed him, or would have considered dismissing him, on such grounds as are mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above.'

No. 22, in page 3, line 9, after '(2),' insert '(2A),'.— [Ms Shipley.]

Ms Shipley: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—

'(9) Nothing in this section shall require a child care organisation to refer an individual to the Secretary of State in any case where the dismissal, resignation, retirement, transfer or suspension took place or, as the case may be, the opinion was formed before the commencement of this section.'
The amendment addresses and clarifies transitional issues that arise from moving from the old administrative system to the new statutory one. It provides that child care organisations will not be under a duty to refer cases where dismissal, resignation or retirement took place prior to the commencement of opinion in clause 2. It provides also that the obligation will not arise in relation to referrals made under subsection 2(2)(a) where the opinion that triggers a referral was formed before the commencement of the operation of clause 2.
The amendment also makes it clear that there will be no obligation on any organisation to trawl through its old cases relating to events that occurred before clause 2 was brought into effect. This will still enable an organisation to refer names where it thinks that there is a case for doing so. As I have explained, such cases will not be automatically entered into the procedure for considering listing by the Secretary of State unless and until he is satisfied that the person concerned is eligible under clause 2(3) criteria to have his name included in the list, particularly in the light of, for example, the age of the allegations, the distance of the alleged events, the reliability of the evidence and such other factors as are relevant in the circumstances of the particular case.

Mr. Maclean: This is an important little amendment, but I do not propose to delay the House for long. I shall ask a few probing questions. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) and I admit that I do not fully understand the legal explanation that she gave. However, I think that I understand the effect of the amendment. It is that the Bill's provisions need not be applied retrospectively. It seems that the amendment provides that there is no obligation on child care organisations to refer cases where the dismissal, resignation, retirement, transfer, suspension or whatever took place, or the opinion on it took place, before the Act came into effect. Some of the other terminology that the hon. Lady used began to confuse me.
If the amendment does not require an organisation to refer to the list employees whose actions took place before the Act's commencement, it seems that it allows it to do so. It is permissive. There is nothing to stop the organisation making a referral. No doubt the Government are happy with the amendment. If they were not, we might not be at this stage. I ask the Minister whether there is an inconsistency. Is he worried that there might be one?
It seems to me that some employees who have been dismissed, possibly on quite serious grounds, will not be referred to the list because their employer is not required to implement the provisions of the Act retrospectively. There will be other employers, however, who will be more meticulous than others. However, they will not be required to trawl through and check their books for the past 20 years and come to an opinion on whether they had an abuser on their books. None the less, some organisations may wish to enter into a research project in looking back through their books on their former employees, or existing employees, to satisfy themselves that they have suitable procedures in place.
In undertaking that research, an organisation may discover that it has an individual or individuals who could be referred, and it would be permitted to do so. Other organisations may say, "We are permitted to refer, but we are not going to." Others may not bother to undertake the research. I know that we never pass any legislation that is tidy, clean and neat and packs and parcels everything up in one neat box, but in this instance there is a difficulty. It is not such a difficulty that I would be tempted to oppose the amendment or vote against it, but I ask the Minister whether it would lead to the possibility of a messy inconsistency. Could it lead to judicial review proceedings?
As I have said, some organisations are meticulous. They will be permitted to refer and they will do so. Other organisations may be sloppier or may not want to start looking backwards. They may not want to make inquiries because they are fearful of what they might discover. They may take the view that it is better to accept that there is no obligation to go back and look at what had happened before implementation of the Act. They may close the books on what had gone on before. That inconsistency worries me.
I have only one other point to make, and I shall not criticise the Minister if he does not have the information to hand; perhaps he will write to me in due course. What are the precedents for retrospective application? When I ask about the precedents for Government action, they may be able to dig out something that I did in the past few years.

Mr. Forth: Surely not.

Mr. Maclean: It is appalling that the Government should even mention that I may have done similar things in my past life. I suspect that the Minister will not have the information to hand, but I should be grateful to be informed of any precedents for retrospective application.

Mr. Forth: The remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) raise an interesting question concerning how long previous ministerial misconduct can be taken into account in this place.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): In the right hon. Gentleman's case, for ever.

Mr. Forth: For quite a long time, but my right hon. Friend and I will have to learn to live with that. Following on from the thrust of what he said, I am worried about and intrigued by whether we are being consistent.
When we debated the previous amendment, which has been accepted, it was argued that we must be worried about what people have done in the past and must not put any obstruction in the way of the consideration of past misdemeanours and the application of the full force and benefit of the Bill. Having said that, we now seem to be saying that there is no obligation to consider what may have happened in the past. It may or may not be desirable, but, to use the intriguing word used by the hon. Member

for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), nothing provides that employers should "trawl" for previous offences or misdemeanours.
If we accept the thrust of what the hon. Lady argued only a few moments ago, however, I should have thought that obligatory trawling might be a good thing. I am anxious that we seem to be heading in two quite different directions. We have said that we must look back at past events and that they must all be taken into account, even if a long time has passed, but, if I understand correctly, we are now saying that there is no obligation to look back and that that may or may not happen, depending, presumably, on the employer's judgment or, more worryingly, on whether he is inclined, or can be bothered, to investigate.
If we have come down to that, a weakness may be beginning to emerge. An employer may not be inclined, or may not have the facility or the resources to trawl—to use the word used by the hon. Member for Stourbridge. Is there any danger that we are encouraging or creating a loophole?
We have almost reached the final stage in our deliberations on the Bill and we are getting it ready to be passed to the other place for further consideration. I have raised this question because I do not want such weaknesses to emerge at such a stage, although I am comforted because they could still be corrected finally by the revising Chamber, which, I am delighted to say, is still with us and is still doing such a wonderful job.

Mr. Hammond: I welcome the principle of the amendment, which closes what appears to be a gap in the wording of clause 2 and makes it absolutely clear that there is no requirement on employers to go back through their records and report what happened in the past. In the great generality of cases, that will be welcome clarification. Retrospective cases will be referred as a result of amendment No. 21 being agreed to, and this amendment will bring such cases into line with cases referred under the normal provisions of clause 2. It is equitable to do so.
Another problem occurred to me as the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) was speaking. I may have misunderstood what she said, so I should like clarification. The hon. Lady noted, as did my right hon. Friends, that, although child care organisations will not be required to make a referral in relation to something that occurred before the coming into force of this measure, they will be permitted to do so. To a large extent, that simply reflects the current position, in which voluntary referrals can be made to the Secretary of State for inclusion in his non-statutory list. However, the hon. Lady said that voluntary referrals would not be included in the list until the Secretary of State was sure that they met the criteria set down in clause 2(3).
My understanding is that no one will be put on the list unless the Secretary of State is sure that he or she meets the criteria listed in clause 2(3), because it must appear to the Secretary of State, from the information submitted with the reference, that it may be appropriate for the individual to be included in the list before he or she is even provisionally included.
The implication behind the hon. Lady's remarks is that the way in which the Secretary of State will deal with voluntary references about events that occurred before the


Act comes into force will somehow be different from the way in which he will deal with statutory referrals after the Act comes into force. I am not sure, from what she said, how that is the case. I wonder whether she intended to imply that those who were referred voluntarily in respect of events occurring before the statute came into operation would not be subject to the provisional inclusion regime, but would be left off the list altogether until the Secretary of State had completed the processes set out in subsection (3) and made a decision, as is required of him in subsection (5). It would be helpful if the hon. Lady would clarify that point.

Ms Shipley: It might be worth my reiterating—I may have stumbled over my words—the precise wording, because it is very important. As with all aspects of this technical Bill, the wording must be precise.
As I explained, such cases will not be automatically entered into the procedure for considering listing by the Secretary of State unless and until he is satisfied that they are eligible under clause 2(3) criteria.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

INCLUSION IN LIST ON TRANSFER FROM CONSULTANCY SERVICE INDEX

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 3, line 16, after 'above' insert
', or the condition mentioned in section 2(2A) above,'.—[Ms Shipley.]

Clause 6

APPEALS AGAINST PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION OF EMPLOYMENT

Ms Shipley: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 5, line 14, leave out
'of the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 26, in page 5, line 17, leave out
'of the Secretary of State'.

Ms Shipley: The amendments will allow the new tribunal to hear appeals against decisions by the National Assembly for Wales to put someone on List 99, as well as appeals against decisions made by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
The amendments are necessary because the powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988 in respect of Wales will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. The transfer will include the power to bar teachers on the new grounds set out in clause 5. As a result, the new tribunal will have to be able to hear appeals from people who are barred by the Assembly as well as by the Secretary of State.
Removing references to the Secretary of State from clause 6 will enable the tribunal to hear appeals against any decision to put someone on List 99, regardless of whether the decision is made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Maclean: I had not intended to comment on the amendment, but I have just one query which the Minister might be able to answer. If the words
of the Secretary of State
are deleted from subsections (1)(a) and (b), the first sentence is left hanging and reads "a decision…to prohibit". When I initially considered the amendment, I asked myself who would be making that decision. I now understand the reasons that the hon. Lady has advanced. As it will be either the Secretary of State in England or the Welsh Assembly in Wales, why leave it blank? Is there some good reason why the Bill cannot be amended to say "a decision by the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Welsh Assembly"? That would make it absolutely clear.
No doubt there is some technical, legal, drafting reason why that is not possible, and I do not want to delay the House as people frantically advance the reasons. If the Minister does not want to respond to me now, I am happy for him to send me a little note explaining why he wants to delete the reference to the Secretary of State and leave the provision anonymous, and why he does not want to take up my suggestion.

Mr. Hutton: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I am happy to correspond with him about that issue.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 5, line 17, leave out
'of the Secretary of State'.—[Ms Shipley.]

Clause 8

SEARCHES OF BOTH LISTS UNDER PART V OF POLICE ACT 1997

Mr. Lansley: 1 beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 6, line 36, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in page 6, line 48, at end insert—
'(6B) Where an application is made under subsection 3(A) or 6(A) above, the certificate shall be provided within such period of time as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
(6C) Where the certificate is not provided within the time limit, no fee shall be payable in respect of that certificate.'.
No. 32, in page 6, line 48, at end insert—
'(6B) Where an application is made under subsection 3(A) or 6(A) above, the certificate shall be provided within 25 working days of receipt of the request.
(6C) Where the certificate is not provided within the time limit, no fee shall be payable in respect of that certificate.'.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to move amendment No. 30 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I am doubly grateful to him for allowing me to refer to this issue, which, as members of the Standing Committee will recall, exercised us from time to time, especially me.
In this trio of amendments, amendment No. 30 is a paving amendment for amendments Nos. 31 or 32. I say "or advisedly, because they are mutually exclusive. The purpose of amendment No. 31 is to enable the Secretary of State at any time to prescribe a time limit within which a certificate must be provided under new subsections 3(A) or 6(A) of the Police Act 1997. This part of the Bill deals with the one-stop shop provision of certificates—either a criminal record certificate or an enhanced criminal certificate—through the Criminal Records Bureau.
It is worth noting that, although in other amendments we have tended to focus on the enhancement of referrals and lists and the opportunities for employers to seek information from those lists, a further benefit can be associated with the Bill under the existing system. The Criminal Records Bureau, which, unless Ministers tell me otherwise, will be established by the end of next year, will be able to provide this one-stop shop service.
As members of the Standing Committee will recall and other hon. Members may be interested to note, a number of issues were raised which should not be rehearsed now but could usefully be mentioned, given the presence of the Minister of State, Home Office. The Under-Secretary of State for Health gave us some comfort without making rash promises when he said that the Home Office would in future consider whether to waive fees for volunteers. I and other members of the Committee expressed concern about the impact or potential deterrent effect on people from voluntary organisations who want to volunteer to work with children and are suitable to do so but would have to pay fees to obtain a certificate.
I want now to move away from volunteers, because the Bill is concerned with employment. We are dealing with statutory bodies that are seeking to employ people. The legal obligation on any organisation seeking to fill a position will be to ensure that it obtains information about an applicant and does not employ a person who is unsuitable to work with children by virtue of his inclusion on any of the lists embraced by this and other legislation.
1.30 pm
I may be corrected, but it is my recollection that it would be illegal—an offence—to give someone who was included on the list a job that involved working with children. Having rightly strengthened employers' legal obligations, we must ensure that employers are able to fulfil those obligations in a timely and objective fashion.
Amendment No. 31 proposes that, when a certificate is provided, it must be provided
within such period of time as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
The purpose of the amendment is straightforward. The Secretary of State would be able not just to consider the obligations of the criminal records bureau in the provision of a certificate, but to weigh up the situation, to act as an intermediary, as it were, between the system governing the delivery of certificates and the requirements imposed on statutory regulatory bodies seeking such certificates, and to specify the period within which those certificates should be provided.
I know that employers often make a provisional offer of employment, subject to the production of the necessary certificates. The Bill is intended to ensure that unsuitable

people should not be placed in a position of trust and responsibility that involves working with children, even—dare I say—for a short time. If that aim is to be fulfilled, an employer must know by the time an employee takes up his post that that person is suitable to work with children. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the employer must know that no evidence is available through the process to suggest that the person is unsuitable. If that is to happen, it must be before the date on which a provisional offer of employment becomes a real offer.
When a teacher is employed—the same applies for many other parts of the public sector—a month's notice is customary: that is, a month's notice of the leaving of one job, and, by extension, a month's notice before the taking up of another. If an offer of employment is to he made with a month's notice, a certificate should be made available within that period.
In Committee, it was suggested that a certificate should be provided within one calendar month. Ministers—understandably: the exigencies of administration are very great—felt that the Bill should not place such a constraint on the running of the system. However, were either amendment No. 31 or amendment No. 32 accepted, it would provide an incentive. Given the expectation that a fee will be charged for the provision of a certificate—in the past, figures of between £5 and £10 have been discussed—either amendment would give the bureau an incentive to provide that certificate within the time limit.

Mr. Hammond: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that there could be a perverse effect? It will undoubtedly take a certain time for an organisation to make a referral after a dismissal, and for the Department of Health to process that referral. It would be a disaster if, in seeking to shorten the time taken to obtain information about an individual whom a new employer wished to employ, we brought about circumstances in which the application for information was made before information referred to the Secretary of State had found its way through the system.

Mr. Lansley: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is interesting; let us think it through.
Let us say that, in the worst case example, someone working with children is resigning to escape the consequences of misconduct, and that the employer may be considering dismissal. The referral may take some time, but it should not take too long. Before providing a certificate for someone seeking a new position, the Criminal Records Bureau should not be made to wait long for information from that person's previous employer, and the organisation that the individual is leaving should be obliged to make the referral quickly. Perhaps that deals with the point.
We have to ensure that referrals are made quickly, and that the Secretary of State will rapidly consider the information and conclude whether there should be a provisional listing. It will have to happen within a matter of days.

Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, especially on his second point—that the Secretary of State will have to process the referral quickly. However, am I not right in thinking that the Bill includes no requirement for a referral to be made within a certain time of dismissal?

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. We are able to posit a series of unhappy circumstances in which an


employer may be late in making a referral, the Secretary of State may be slow in making a provisional inclusion and someone who is leaving one employment in circumstances that should lead to a referral and listing may be able to secure employment somewhere else—perhaps even with the appropriate certificate and checks, but without anything being provided to the prospective employer indicating that that person is unsuitable to work with children. A consistent feature of our debates on the Bill has been our ability to posit a series of difficult circumstances.
The legislation will work, but only if all the bodies involved—employers, Departments and, eventually, the Criminal Records Bureau—show some rigour, speed and attention to detail. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will agree that the circumstances that we have been discussing do not force us to conclude that the Criminal Records Bureau will, as a matter of course, be slow in providing a criminal record certificate. The burden should rest on others to be quick in making referrals and in ensuring provisional inclusion on the list, so that requests for criminal record certificates, or enhanced criminal record certificates, are filled effectively, accurately and in a timely fashion.
The heart of the issue is that those who are legally obliged not to employ people who are known to be unsuitable to work with children should not be placed in a position in which they inadvertently do so, and thus fail to meet their obligations, simply because the Criminal Records Bureau takes more than 25 days, or whatever other time limit is prescribed by the Secretary of State, to provide a certificate.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border for having been sufficiently astute—and perhaps forgiving of the difficulties of administration in Departments, including the Home Office, in which he served with such distinction—in allowing for the possibility that the Secretary of State might, justifiably, set a time limit other than of 25 working days. As I said in previous debates in Committee, 25 days is the appropriate type of time limit, and it would be appropriate in this case.
I hope that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) will express some positive sentiment about the spirit of amendment No. 30, and that the Minister will perhaps be able further to reinforce his helpful comments on the process of providing certificates and on fees. Perhaps he will also be able further to reinforce his positive sentiments about how the system will work.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for kicking off on the amendment. I take credit only for reading what he and other hon. Members said in Committee, learning very quickly from their wise words and drafting the amendments. My hon. Friend has done an excellent job of introducing them, so I shall take just a couple of minutes to add emphasis to his comments and to let the House know that, although my hon. Friend has introduced the amendments standing in my name, I support them entirely.
There is merit in the either/or approach in the amendments. It is perfectly right for the Government to say that they do not want to be tied down to inflexible

time limits of 25 days, for example. Therefore, it is legitimate to say that, if we do not meet certain fairly strict times, the fee should be returned. That might appease some of the organisations that are writing to us about the prospective level of fees.
We have all received letters from scouts' and girl guides' organisations and others. I know that they are not child care organisations, but they reflect the concern about the level of fee to be charged. All the child care organisations that are caught by the provision will be charged exactly the same fee unless the Government tell me otherwise and say that, as the matter was raised in Committee, they have reflected on the possibility of a graded scale of fees.
Such a scale would entail the Government's saying that some organisations were more deserving than others. That is a very difficult decision. I am not pressing on the Government, as I did not want to have to take such a decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am happy to share that information with the House. I cannot remember what the final decision was or whether the matter reached a final decision in my time, but I certainly did not want to have to decide that certain organisations should be charged £1 and others £5 and that, if we were subsidising some organisations, others would have to be charged £20 or £30. However, I would be grateful for the Government's thinking on different graded fees and categories of applicant, whether they are volunteers or others.
Personally, I do not think that a fee of £10 will put off volunteers, nor do I think that it is a drastically high fee to charge an individual who is getting employment. It may be low-paid, moderately paid or quite highly paid employment, but it is not a drastic imposition. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made the same point in Committee.
I should be grateful to know whether there is any more certainty about the level of the fee. It is now nearly three years since I asked my officials that question and they replied, "Well, Minister, the fee may be between £5 and £10." Three years on, the Government are still saying that it will probably be between £5 and £10. I should like to know whether it is nearer £5 or £10. Perhaps I shall get an answer when the Minister of State, Home Office occupies the Lord Chancellor's chair, as we are convinced he is deemed to do. Will we have to wait until that occasion before we can have certainty? I have made the points I wished to make, not to add emphasis, but to say that I agree entirely with the points that my hon. Friend has made so lucidly on my behalf and I should be grateful if the Minister would give us a little hint as to his thinking.

Mr. Hutton: It probably would be more appropriate if I confined my remarks to the amendment to which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) have spoken. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman or to anyone else that I am urging my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) not to support the amendments and to resist their inclusion in the Bill. Both suggested versions of new section 115(6B) of the Police Act 1997 would require the Criminal Records Bureau to provide a criminal record certificate or an enhanced certificate within a certain period—one within a period to be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order, and the other within 25 days.
1.45 pm
It is the Government's intention to publish target times for the issue of certificates. In the case of enhanced certificates, which will require information to be obtained from individual police forces, it is intended that there will be target times by which police forces should respond to requests for information from the bureau.
The targets have not yet been set, but I understand that the aim is to issue the certificates as quickly as possible. However, it would not be helpful to have a statutory time limit as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire proposes, because that would not allow us to take into account delays that might be caused by an incorrectly completed application form, a dispute about someone's identity, or other unforeseen delays that it would be unreasonable and unfair to attribute to the Criminal Records Bureau. It would be unreasonable for the bureau to have to forfeit the fee if a certificate were not issued within the time limit because of delays outside its control.
For those reasons, and others, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I urge the House to resist it if he is not prepared to do that.

Mr. Maclean: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said—

Mr. Lansley: So have I.
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the points that I made, and I see that there are difficulties. First, the Criminal Records Bureau might suffer a detriment through no fault of its own and, secondly, the last thing that I would want to do is to introduce a perverse incentive for those who wish to avoid the fee to submit false or inadequate information so as to create a delay.
I hope that the Minister—indeed, both Ministers who are here, with their respective responsibilities—will have taken on board the difficulties that I mentioned. The exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and me illustrated the importance of timeliness in the process. As there is consensus on the subject, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

THE TRIBUNAL

Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 15, leave out 'in prescribed circumstances' and insert
'at the discretion of the Tribunal'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in page 7, line 16, leave out 'in prescribed circumstances' and insert
'at the discretion of the Tribunal'.
No. 18, in page 7, line 36, at end insert ';
';and
(s) for the location of hearings, to provide for reasonable access and security of the persons involved.'.

Mr. Forth: I suppose that it is appropriate that this is our final consideration of the detail in the Bill before Third

Reading rounds things off. It may seem that our consideration has been overly detailed, but some of the matters that I want to raise are important, because the tribunal will play such a key role. We must get the arrangements as right as we can.
The first thing that caught my eye was the suggestion in subsection (2)(e) and (f) that the Secretary of State may include in regulations provision
for the holding of hearings in private in prescribed circumstances
and
for imposing reporting restrictions in prescribed circumstances".
It is a dubious proposition that even the Secretary of State would have sufficient prescience to be able to judge the likely circumstances in which hearings in private and reporting restrictions may arise.
Of course, we all have the greatest respect for existing Secretaries of State—and future Secretaries of State—but we are entitled to a little occasional doubt as to whether they, or even their advisers, would be able to look far enough into the future to make such predictions with confidence, especially given the sensitivities and the variations in circumstances likely to be involved in the hearings before the tribunal.
Needless to say, I would prefer the wording in my amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which would leave such matters to the tribunal's discretion. We are trusting the tribunal with so much else that we should trust it to make its own judgment on whether hearings should be in private and whether reporting restrictions should be imposed. Given the nature of the hearings, we might start with a presumption that they should be held in private and covered by reporting restrictions. That is an important question, and we have had no guidance on it.
The tribunal should be able to decide for itself, in the knowledge of the prevailing circumstances and the individual case. With the best will in the world, regulations could not make provision for all circumstances in a sufficiently sensitive and flexible way, especially as we do not know whether the presumption will be that reporting restrictions should be in force and that hearings should be held in private, with public hearings only in exceptional cases. It would be more respectful to the tribunal to allow it to decide for itself. We now have great experience of tribunals on different issues, and such decisions could safely be left to the tribunal in this case.
Amendment No. 18, I accept, makes the other argument. It would be useful to have regulations—which could still allow some flexibility—that made provision for the location of, access to and security of hearings. My reasons are well rehearsed. Hearings should be located so as to be as convenient as possible for those involved, their families and witnesses. However, that has to be squared with reasonable access—I do not mean only the obvious access for people with disabilities—and the need for security. Cases such as those that the tribunal will hear can occasionally give rise to strong feelings in communities and the need for security, especially on the part of the person at the centre of the hearings, should be fully taken into account.
I hope that my amendments will be accepted. It is reasonable to request that the tribunal should be given a proper role in deciding its proceedings, and we should also be sensible about the difficulties that may arise.

Mr. Maclean: I support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and


Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I urge the Minister to consider accepting amendment No. 18—if not today, then when it goes to the other place. He should do so because clause 9 does not contain the normal catch-all regulation-making power which usually says that the Secretary of State may make any other regulations that he thinks fit. If those words had been added to clause 9, after the list of some 20 other regulation-making powers, the Minister could tell the House that amendment No. 18 was unnecessary, because any worries about access or security would be the subject of the catch-all regulation-making power.
As far as I can see, however, the catch-all power is missing. It is often a relief to see such a power missing, because regulation-making catch-all powers are in some ways too much of a Henry VIII clause. But I am concerned because clause 9 sets out specific regulation-making powers. It is some time since I have seen powers laid out so specifically. If 20 individual points are named on which the Secretary of State may make regulations, statute law may be interpreted to mean that we cannot regulate on a 21st, unless there is a catch-all.
The point about access and security is a small one. The Bill is in much better shape that it was when it went into Committee, and today's amendments today have improved its shape further. Even though the Minister has not accepted some amendments, our debates have made the Bill infinitely better than it was when it was first a gleam in the eye of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley). This small amendment could improve it further.
We have all seen on television scenes in which someone has been charged with a horrible crime and, understandably, a large group—perhaps "mob" would be too derogatory a term—of relatives and concerned local people has gathered outside the court, or people are banging on the sides of the security van as the accused person is taken to and from the court. We all know that when a paedophile is released from prison there are difficulties over where that person may settle. Local people become concerned and groups form. After his having been in prison, the released person's life may be at risk once again if the public get their hands on him.
Those are extreme cases, but there is a similar potential for danger if some people are outed as possible abusers who will face a tribunal hearing. In some cases, it is understandable that, if the press misbehave and report that the person will appear before a tribunal and may be regarded as a child molester or pervert, some people will, to put it at its mildest, wish to make their point of view known to him or her; others may wish to commit violence.
I have no sympathy at all with convicted child abusers or molesters or paedophiles. However, we must assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty. We must assume that someone appearing before a tribunal is innocent until the tribunal rules against him or her. In such circumstances, people are entitled to secure access when they travel to the hearing, wherever it may be.
I agree with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on his other two amendments. I hope that the Minister will say whether the presumption in regulations will be for or against holding hearings in private and the imposition of reporting restrictions. There is merit in the suggestion that the tribunal should be left to decide whether to hold hearings in private or impose reporting restrictions.
The tribunal may know better than the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State should leave it to the president of the tribunal to decide. The Bill says that the president of the tribunal must be a legally qualified person of seven years' experience who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor. He or she should have the nous, gumption and ability to make decisions for himself or herself.

Mr. Hutton: I shall respond briefly to the points raised by the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). Amendment No. 18 contains some serious technical deficiencies. I do not intend in any way to brush off the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but the amendment would fit badly with the Bill. For example, he will find that his concern about access to premises is already covered by paragraph 5 of the schedule.
The topics covered in clause 9(3) are as they are because the regulations relate to the conduct of proceedings before the industrial tribunal. The right hon. Gentleman's suggested addition to the list would go significantly beyond matters that relate to the conduct of such proceedings. I am not sure of the exact position or whether it would be appropriate to use clause 9(2) and the powers therein to make provision for a matter that did not apply directly to those proceedings.
2 pm
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of good points when talking to amendments Nos. 16 and 17, to which I will respond as best I can. As drafted, the Bill provides that the holding of hearings in private and the imposition of reporting restrictions—both steps that should not be taken lightly, as I am sure the House will agree—may take place only in circumstances that will be specified in regulations. The amendments propose that those decisions should be left to the discretion of the tribunal, so that it may hold hearings in private and impose reporting restrictions very much at its own discretion.
It is no exaggeration to say that it is a fundamental principle of English law that hearings should take place in public and judgments should be pronounced publicly. Those rights should be curtailed only where there is specific justification for doing so, for example, to protect the interests of juveniles and the identity of witnesses, or more generally, where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
As such, it would be entirely inappropriate to allow the tribunal the discretion to disapply those rights at its own initiative. It should be able to do so only in certain limited circumstances, which should be clearly expressed, so that the parties to the application are clear from the outset as to their rights and any decision on those important issues is taken within clearly identified criteria so everyone knows where they stand and how their case is likely to be dealt with.
Two other matters were raised during this short debate. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst queried the general thrust of the power to make regulations. The powers under clause 9 are similar to powers taken in the Education Act 1996—I think that it would be fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman was one of the main architects of that legislation.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border expressed his concern about the list of matters to be subject to regulation under clause 9. He was concerned at the lack of a residual catch-all power to make regulations as and when the Secretary of State might think appropriate. Clause 9(3) states:
The regulations may, in particular, include provision—
and goes on to list various items. The list is not intended to be exhaustive: we drew attention to particular issues with which we thought it necessary to deal on the face of the Bill.
There are technical problems with both the amendments and strong reasons why they should not be included in the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Forth: It sounds as though I should ask for my previous ministerial convictions to be taken into account, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do so at this stage.
I thank the Minister for his full and convincing reply to the debate. I am satisfied with what he has said and, without any further hesitation, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 9, line 43, after '(2)' insert
',or the condition mentioned in subsection (2A),'.—[Ms Shipley.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Ms Shipley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Hon. Members will recall that, when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill in February, I expressed my great pleasure at having had the opportunity to introduce a Bill whose object was further to strengthen our national arrangements for protecting some of the most vulnerable members of our society. At that time, I expressed confidence that hon. Members on both sides of the House shared a real determination to ensure that adequate and workable protection would be put in place.
In Committee, we had the opportunity to consider the Bill and its purpose carefully. I believe that the Bill returned to the Floor of the House stronger as a result of the constructive contributions of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I pay tribute to them for their sensitive, detailed, positive examination of it.
As has been noted, the Bill is not perfect. Sadly, we cannot guarantee that no child will ever again suffer abuse, but the Bill will nevertheless substantially enhance the protection available to prevent unsuitable people from working with children. I have been deeply touched by a wealth of letters of support. I know that other hon. Members have received many letters from people who have been directly or indirectly scarred by abuse that they or their siblings suffered in childhood outside the home.
Some incidents go back decades. I hope that those who wrote can draw some comfort from what the Bill puts in place to protect children and the wider context in which it will operate.
While improved in some details, the amended Bill returns to the House unchanged in its overall intent. By putting the existing Department of Health consultancy index on a statutory basis, it continues to offer a vital first step to providing a one-stop shop to compel, or allow, employers to access a single point for checking the names of people whom they propose to employ in a post involving care of children. With the related changes to the Department for Education and Employment List 99 and the Criminal Records Bureau, which was established under part V of the Police Act 1997, the effect will be greatly to increase and facilitate the efficiency of the checking process, as envisaged in the proposals stemming from the Whitehall working group that is examining the whole question of protecting the vulnerable.
I shall briefly identify where significant changes have been made to the Bill. Their general thrust has been to recognise concern in Committee that, while the essential aim of strengthening the protection of children from abuse and the risk of abuse should at all times be maintained, it needed to be balanced by addressing the reasonable rights of individuals facing a possible lifetime ban on working in child care positions.
I was persuaded in Committee that it would not be right to include incompetence in the grounds in clause 2 for referring a case to the Secretary of State for consideration for listing. The grounds should rely solely on misconduct that harms a child or places a child at risk of harm. That change has been made because concerns were raised that incompetence, as opposed to misconduct, would cast the net so wide that it would catch those who might have acted out of mere inexperience or immaturity. Incidents involving gross incompetence will still be included in the remaining category of misconduct. However, it seemed on reflection inappropriate to make individuals eligible for listing as a result of a single, possibly isolated, incident. Leaving a gate open and allowing a child to run out on to the street was an example cited in Committee. That could lead to people being banned from employment for which, with suitable guidance and training, they might prove well suited.
Clause 2 has been amended on Report so that the capacity to refer names extends to circumstances where it becomes apparent to child care or other organisations after the dismissal, resignation, retirement or transfer of an individual that, had the relevant information been available, they would have dismissed or considered dismissing that person on the ground of misconduct that harmed a child or put a child at risk of harm.
Clause 4 has been amended to improve the position of individuals whose names have been referred to the Secretary of State and listed by him provisionally. In its original form, there was no opportunity for such cases to approach the tribunal set up by the clause because no useful rights of appeal could be given in circumstances where there was no final decision on listing, and therefore no ground for appeal available. What is now clause 4(2), read with subsections (4), (5), and (6), safeguards the position of individuals listed provisionally by giving them an avenue of approach to the tribunal, with the tribunal's leave, if they have been listed provisionally for more than nine months. That will not, and cannot, be a right of


appeal; rather, it protects individuals against being kept provisionally listed for unreasonable periods without a decision from the Secretary of State by transferring the decision, where the tribunal agrees, to the tribunal itself.
Given the care that must be taken in such cases, nine months seems not unreasonable, especially as clause 2 lays down strict procedures under which the Secretary of State has to seek observations from the various parties and make such inquiries as he thinks necessary. By the same token, the amendments provide for a reasonable period of consideration before approach to the tribunal becomes open after the determination of any civil or criminal proceedings, should the case involve such proceedings.
The requirement to obtain the tribunal's leave in all cases will prevent abuses of process whereby individuals seek to delay the Secretary of State by failing to submit their observations. The tribunal will most appropriately function as a reviewing body, rather than substituting for the Secretary of State's initial administrative decision. However, it is clearly right that there should be protection from unreasonable delay, and individuals should not be kept waiting interminably for the Secretary of State to act. Needless to say, I have no doubt that Ministers will want to ensure that such delays occur as infrequently as possible, if at all.
We have sought to improve the transitional position of individuals who have been referred to the list in the present consultancy service index, but whose cases will not have been determined before the new listing arrangements under clause 2 are brought into force. Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 13 now provide that all such cases should be treated as if they were fresh references under clause 2, thereby attracting from the outset all the procedural protections conferred by that clause.
Those changes have clarified and strengthened this necessary Bill. I am particularly grateful for the spirit in which the Bill has been approached by all the hon. Members who served on the Committee, without exception. They properly probed and tested the proposals, but they were entirely constructive throughout. That spirit has continued today, and I am grateful for that. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), first, on having selected this important subject for her private Member's Bill when she was successful in the ballot and, secondly, on the considerable fortitude that she has demonstrated in dealing with what is, by the standards of private Members' Bills, complex and difficult legislation.
I thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged so constructively with all members of the Standing Committee and all hon. Members who have expressed an interest in the Bill. He has genuinely sought to deal with issues raised during the Bill's consideration. That spirit of consensus was evident during the Committee proceedings and has been evident this morning. Perhaps that demonstrates that, if one can remove the politics from this place, it works extremely well to everybody's benefit.
There has been consensus on the Bill's underlying principles since they were first aired on Second Reading. What concerns have been expressed have related to the

details of its implementation and, most seriously, its implications for the rights of individuals caught up in its mechanisms. The Committee proceedings and our consideration this morning have gone a long way to resolve some, perhaps even most, of those concerns. The remaining concerns can be re-examined when the Bill is considered by those in another place, who have demonstrated their particular interest in issues of fundamental individual rights, and I look forward with great interest to their further deliberations on the Bill.
I repeat the plea that I made vicariously through my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Will the Government consider making draft guidance available before our noble colleagues examine the Bill in another place? That would help them to get the legislation absolutely right and ensure that, if it is not perfect, it is as near perfect as any legislation can ever be.
It is important that we remember that the Bill is only a part of the attack on abuse against children. The Minister mentioned the Government's wider agenda in that respect, and spoke about how the Bill would fit into the overall programme. We look forward to seeing those measures in due course, and we hope to be able to support them in the constructive spirit that Conservative Members have been able to extend to the Bill.
However, it is important that we remember that legislation alone will not solve the serious problem of abuse against children, and it is important that we do not allow the Bill or any other piece of legislation to encourage us to slip into a sense of false security and a belief that the problem has been tackled, because it is deep-rooted and persistent.
On balance, the Bill is a sound, reasonably robust measure, which will make a very important contribution to the protection of children, without unduly putting at risk the rights of individuals who are caught up in the system. As such, I am delighted to be able to lend it my support.

Mr. Hutton: The Bill is a very important measure, which will go a long way to construct a more complete and more effective child protection system.
I again warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on using the opportunity given to her, following the ballot, to introduce such an important and responsible measure. She has gained the admiration of the House for the way in which she has mastered a very complex topic and steered the Bill through to Third Reading.
The Bill deserves to succeed, and I hope that it receives favourable and swift attention in another place. However, it places heavy obligations on Government. Provided it passes all its stages, implementation of the main provisions will require considerable application and—as the regulatory impact assessment has shown—new resources. Setting up the new Department of Health list will entail very careful consideration of all the current cases from the present consultancy service index, which the new list will replace. An entirely new and fully independent tribunal will have to be set up to hear appeals against inclusion in the Department of Health and Department for Education and Employment lists. But we have no doubt at all that those provisions are necessary, and that the necessary resources will be made available to ensure that they work well.
The protection of children is a subject on which, I am glad to say, everyone in the House is happy to unite. However, it is vital for Parliament—even at the same time as deploring the actions that we are trying to prevent—to ensure that the package of measures is balanced and fair. Strong measures require strong protections. Of course children should be protected, but so must the rights of adults considered for listing. I believe that the Bill brings about a better balance and, on behalf of the Government and all Labour Members, I unreservedly recommend that it receives a Third Reading.
I believe that we have done something very important and profound today. Again, the House has shown that, when it comes to protecting the interests of children, we can put party political differences aside—that we can act together concertedly and determinedly to protect children from abusers and those who would place them at risk of harm. That is a tribute to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the time to participate in these proceedings.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) for his kind words, but I believe that all of us who have been involved in the Bill—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge—may take great comfort from the fact that we have done something of real importance, which will significantly develop protection for children.
I hope that the Bill proceeds today and goes into the House of Lords, and that it soon reaches the statute book.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), on behalf of many hon. Members and on behalf of children who have no voice in the House—but who seem to have been given a very loud voice by my hon. Friend.
There has been much talk of trawling. I take up that theme by saying that the Bill does much to close the net around wicked people who use their position to abuse children. I wish the Bill fair weather to sail swiftly through the other place, and to return safely to the House.

Mr. Maclean: I, too, wish the Bill all success as it leaves the House in the next few minutes, and I congratulate all who gave it proper consideration in Committee. It received proper consideration also on Second Reading and on Report.
If the Bill had been a Government measure, it would have received a full day's consideration on Second Reading. It would have been considered over five or six sittings in Committee, followed by a full day on Report. It is a happy coincidence that this private Member's Bill was debated for a full day on Second Reading, during which concerns were expressed, especially about the incompetence provision. That was followed by five days in Committee.
It is one of the few private Members' Bills that has had five genuine sittings in Committee. These Bills sometimes go into Committee to emerge half an hour later, when we say that wonderful improvements have been made and

then expect to get them bounced through the House on the nod on a Friday. If they have had more than four sittings in Committee, Members try to block them for whatever reason. In this instance, we have seen genuine consensus across all parties, which desire legislation to be tightened periodically, whenever there is an opportunity to do so, to protect children.
I played a minor part in the previous Conservative Government and I am proud of what we achieved through various pieces of legislation. The Department of Health introduced measures to increase the protection of children. Through some of the measures that we introduced at the Home Office, we tried to deal with those who abused children. We did so in different ways—by introducing different criminal sanctions and taking up the work that the NCIS does, for example. The Bill is a further improvement and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on taking up this subject in the ballot, on presenting the Bill as clearly as she did on Second Reading and on taking on board in Committee the concerns that we had expressed.
I am so grateful that the hon. Lady dealt with the incompetence provision; it would not be such a good Bill if she had failed to do so. We were all concerned about primary schoolteachers taking children out for an afternoon to some event—those teachers are not child abusers; they have no malice towards children and, indeed, they love, adore and respect them—and through an oversight, through no doubt what could be incompetence or through an error of judgment, being slightly careless. Every parent is in that potential position 24 hours a day. If a primary schoolteacher had made an error that was regarded as incompetence, he or she would have been caught by the Bill and would have appeared on the same list as some of the vilest child abusers imaginable. That was clearly wrong.
On listening to the responses on Second Reading, I was not convinced that the point would be taken on board. I am sorry if, over the past few months, I have caused the hon. Member for Stourbridge and her hon. Friends undue concern.

Mr. Boateng: It is on the record.

Mr. Maclean: The record at the time speaks for itself. I was deeply concerned about the incompetence provision and I was muttering at the time that I could not support the Bill unless the point was taken on board. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—I rarely do so—for advancing the issue in Committee. It was considered carefully by the Minister and by others in Committee, and the Bill has been improved. I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has handled the Bill and on his demeanour today.
I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in the Chamber regularly on a Friday. It seems that some Ministers take slight umbrage at the fact that they have to be in the Chamber for a full day to deal with amendments that they think could be dealt with in five minutes. They become rather upset when Bills are not bounced through on the nod. Today, we have given proper consideration to a proper Bill. We are merely carrying on what the hon. Member for Stourbridge and her hon. Friends did in Committee.
The hon. Lady has introduced amendments that have been accepted. In my inadequate way, I advanced similar amendments. Of course, they were not as well drafted as


the hon. Lady's. If I had the resources that are available to Ministers and that the hon. Lady might have had available to assist her—[Interruption.] No, I did not mean that; I apologise. I think that the hon. Lady had £200 with which to hire the best legal advice. She spent her money wisely. The hon. Lady's amendments have improved the Bill still further. [Interruption.] I only wish that one could buy an alternative Government for £200.
The Minister's demeanour today has been exemplary and he listened carefully to the points that were made. Where he thought it appropriate, he rejected amendments, but he has convinced me that, whether in respect of Government or Department of Health guidelines, he takes these issues deeply seriously and wants the Bill to work.
The Bill stands a good chance of working. I was a Minister for long enough and am not so naive that I think that perfect legislation can be achieved. As I said earlier, as soon as we think that we have cracked down on one type of criminality—on one aspect of the behaviour of paedophiles in particular—those devious, clever, nasty people manage to exert their evil influence in some other area that we had not considered. The best example of that relates to pornography and the abuses involved in it. If we try to crack down on pornography, it pops up in a different aspect the next day.
I congratulate the Minister on his responses, but I hope that he will take on board one of the key points made during the debate on new clause 2, which was not accepted by the Government. The spirit of the new clause, however, was accepted. I am not making a party political point by again using the phrase "joined-up government"—that is the Government's phrase—but our debate provided

the best example of where joined-up government can deliver coherent explanations to the House. That is much better than Conservative Members bashing out parliamentary questions, some of which may be answered and others of which may not, on the ground of disproportionate cost.
Even if Ministers answer all the questions—[Interruption.] I look forward to receiving answers from the Home Office in due course; the Minister of State, Home Office is smiling at me. Even if all the questions are answered, we still have only bits and pieces of information and they need to be pulled together in a coherent form, which is the sort of thing that Cabinet Committees are good at.
The structure for achieving that coherence exists. There is a departmental working group; Ministers are co-operating on all aspects of improving the lot of children and on how they can bear down more viciously on those who abuse children. If the machinery exists, let us pull it together and present a report—it would not have to be statutory—to the House. We would then have proof positive that the Bill, which will go to the other place, will make a positive impact in improving the lot of children everywhere.
I am delighted to support the Bill, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is throwing the full weight of the Conservative party behind it. I had hoped that there would be a Liberal present in the Chamber to commend the Bill. I wish it well as it proceeds to the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Clive Efford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Much has been made today of attempts to bounce Bills through the House. This Bill is identical to the Bill I presented during the previous Session of Parliament, which reached its Third Reading and was shot down by the lone voice of one Member.
My Bill would bring benefits to 1 million tenants of registered social landlords nationally, achieve efficiencies in drawing up energy conservation strategies by local authorities and lead to the efficient use of resources.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I assure my hon. Friend that the Government fully support the Bill going speedily forward.

Mr. Efford: I thank my hon. Friend, and hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading.

Mr. Eric Forth: This Bill contrasts with the Protection of Children Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) rightly praised. It was debated carefully by hon. Members, the promoter was careful to achieve consensus and it received a proper hearing in Committee and on Report. Is it not sad that some people seem to believe that they can make law by diminishing the role of this House and seeking to circumvent its proper rules and procedures—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

It being half-past Two o'clock the debate stood adjourned

Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 May.

Orders of the Day — Remaining Private Members' Bills

ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 May.

CANCER CARE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

FUEL SAFETY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (INSANITY) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

PLANNING APPEALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

BUS FUEL DUTY (EXEMPTIONS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 7 May.

PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)

Ordered,
That the Order [13th January] relating to the Greater London Authority Bill (Programme) be supplemented as follows:

REPORT AND THIRD READING
1.—(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second day.
(2) On the first allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

PROCEEDINGS ON CONSIDERATION
2.—(1) The proceedings to be taken on consideration on each of the two allotted days shall be as shown in the second column of the Table in sub-paragraph (2) below and shall be taken in the order so shown.
(2) Each part of the proceedings on those days shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the Table.


TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2, Amendments to Schedule 1,




Amendments to Clauses 3 and 4, Amendments to Schedule 2,




Amendments to Clauses 5 to 17, Amendments to Schedule 3,




Amendments to Clauses 18 to 24 New clases relating to Part 1 and New Schedules relating to Part I
6.00 p.m.



Amendments to Clauses 25 to 30, Amendments to Schedules 4,




Amendments to Clauses 31 to 66, New clauses relating to Part II and New Schedules relating to part II
7.30p.m.



Amendments to Clauses 67 to 72, Amendments to Schedule 5,




Amendments to Clauses 73 to 83, Amendments to Schedule 6,




Amendments to Clauses 84 to 118, Amendments to Schedule 7,




Amendments to Clauses 119 to 122, New Clauses relating to Part III and New Schedules relating to Part III
8.00p.m.



Amendments to Clauses 123 to 133




Amendments to clauses 8,




Amendments to Clauses 134 to 142,




Amendments to clauses 148 to 170,







Amendments to Clause 188, Amendments to Schedule 12,




Amendments to Clauses 189 to 193,




Amendments to Schedule 14,




Amendments to Clauses 194 to 196,




Amendments to Schedule 15,




Amendments to Clause 197, Amendments to Schedule 16,




Amendments to Clause 198, Amendments to Schedule 17,




Amendments to Clause 197 to 221, New Clauses relating to Chapters I II, IV, V and VII to XII of Part IV and New Schedule s relating to Chapters I II, IV, V and VII to XII of Part IV
9.30 p.m.



Amendments to Claus 224 to 228,




Amendments to Schedule 20, New Clauses relating of Part V, New Schedules relating to Part V,




Amendments to Clause 229, Amendments to Schedule 21,




Amendments to Clause 230 to 241,




Amendments to Schedule 22, New Clauses relating to Part VI, New Schedules relating to Part VI,




Amendments to Clause 242, Amendments to Schedule 23 and 24,




Amendments to Clause 243 to 247, New Clauses relating to Part VII, New Schedules relating to Part VII,




Amendments to Clause 248 to 264, New Clauses relating to Part VIII, New Schedules relating to Part VIII,




Amendments to Clause 265 to 283, New Clauses relating to Part IX, New Schedules relating to Part IX,




Amendments to Clause 284,




Amendment to Schedule 25,




Amendments to Clause 285 to 290, New Clauses relating to Part X, New Schedules relating to Part X,




Amendments to Clause 291 to 300, New Clauses relating to Parts XI and XII, New Schedules relating to Parts XI and XII
Midnight






Second day
Amendments to Clauses 143 to 147,




Amendments to Clauses 171 to 180,




Amendments to Schedules 10 and 11,




Amendments to Clauses 181 to 186, New Clauses relating to Chapters III and VI of Part IV,
New Schedules relating to Chapters III and VI of Part IV,




Amendments to Clause 187, Amendments to Schedule 9 and Amendments to Schedule 13
6.30 p.m.



Amendments to Clause 222, Amendments to Schedule 18,




Amendments to Clause 223, Amendments to Schedule 19, remaining New Clauses, remaining New
Schedules,




Amendments to Clauses 301 to 304, Amendments to Schedule 26 and Amendments to Clauses 305
and 306.
9.00 p.m.

CONCLUSION OF PROCEEDINGS
3.—(1) For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
4. If any Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order so as to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill under paragraph I or 2 of this Order, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUN)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 27th May, do adjourn till Tuesday 8th June.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 27th May, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Orders of the Day — Assisted Area Status (Southend)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. David Amess: I speak this afternoon on behalf of a community that is not in despair, but is full of hope. It hopes very much that the Government, and the Minister in particular, will listen carefully to what I have to say and will support Southend borough council's bid for assisted area status.
I have had many Adjournment debates in the House. They are judged not by the eloquence of the hon. Member participating, but by their results. I do not mean the results that flow immediately from the press releases and photographs, but those that occur weeks or months later, when the initial impetus of the case of which an hon. Member is trying to persuade the House has faded into the distant past. I know that this is the Minister's first parliamentary term, but I hope that he will be able to persuade his departmental team to support Southend borough council's bid.
It has never been my natural tendency to support moves to highlight areas in economic difficulty, because, unless one chooses one's language carefully, it can be counter-productive. That is certainly not what I intend to do this afternoon, but I find myself with no choice other than to support the council's bid. Indeed, I would be failing in my duty if I did not speak up for Southend.
My wife is very much a Southend girl. Since she has returned to live in the town, she has been somewhat astounded—without wanting to put too much emphasis on it—to find how the general ambience has changed since her childhood. She is proud of Southend and loves the town in which she spent most of her early years. She is not an elderly lady—she is in the prime of life—but all I can say is that things are a little challenging at the moment.
I am armed with the brochures that wax lyrical about how wonderful Southend is, and I believe that. The town is also represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who has notched up double the service in the House that I have given and shares with me the great distinction of having represented two constituencies. He and I are at one in our support for this bid.
The half of the constituency that I represent centres around Leigh-on-Sea. The town council has produced an excellent book, which says:
The earliest known written record of Leigh is an entry in the Domesday Book, 1086.…In 1565 Leigh was a very busy port, with many tall ships anchored in the deep channel …1620, The 'Mayflower', was a very popular name for sailing ships, but it is believed that the most famous 'Mayflower' and the Pilgrim Fathers, came to Leigh to pick up passengers and stores for their voyage to America.
Parts of Leigh are undoubtedly very beautiful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) knows only too well, it is in a beautiful setting, and the wildlife that lives in or visits the area is something to behold. It is an estuary town near the junction of the River Thames and the North sea.
We have a wonderful public relations department in Southend, which has produced a glossy brochure entitled "Southend. Now there's nowhere quite like us!.. Experience the changes".
It says:
As the largest town in Essex, and situated in what is regarded as the driest part of the country, Southend has now developed a more cosmopolitan atmosphere and has grown into a vibrant seaside resort, and London's favourite 'theme park' all year round, with something for all the family.
Southend has long boasted of its world famous pier, but it now has a multitude of exciting new visitor attractions, thrilling adventure rides and spectacular events. You can also relax on award winning beaches or esplanades, stroll through some of the most magnificent parks and gardens in the South East, or just wander through the town that combines the charms of a traditional seaside resort with a superb range of restaurants, splendid shopping facilities, exciting theatres and musical performances.
Why are we spending half an hour talking about giving assisted area status to Southend if it is as wonderful as that? Any politician who concentrates on politics and is serious about these issues knows that the worst thing one can do is to talk down an area. We owe it to our constituents to talk up an area.
Last year, I visited the European Community to persuade two Commissioners of the case for Southend being granted assisted area status. I do not know what the Labour Government's position is on Europe, but I shall tell the Minister what mine is. In the '70s, I voted no in the referendum. When we have a referendum on the single currency, I shall also vote no. I want us to trade our goods and services with Europe, and have educational and cultural links, but I am totally against a United States of Europe with one Government and one currency. As I saw the value of the euro plummet further today, I wondered whether there ever would be a referendum on the single currency. As the Government's economic policy seems to be building up to our entry into the euro, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be in somewhat of a quandary.
I mention Europe because I am a democrat. We were slaughtered in the referendum in the '70s, and I want to take advantage of our involvement in Europe. Surely to goodness that can be achieved by the Government advancing the position of Southend to be given assisted area status. [Interruption.] I am sure that the Minister is discussing important matters with the Whip, but I hope that he is listening to my comments about Southend, because many of my constituents will expect him not just to read the civil service brief, but to pick up on one or two points of which I may not have given him advance warning.
The two European Commissioners said that the buck stops with the Government—I am not flying or sailing across the channel to sort this matter out. They said that it was up to the Government to support Southend's bid for assisted area status. They gave me a deadline.
The House of Commons Library, which as far as I am concerned is the fount of all truth—there is no spinning there—has armed me with all the ammunition. I shall not waste half an hour by dwelling on the Minister's response to our last debate on this subject, which took place only a few days ago. I have read it; so be it. In any event, Southend meets all the relevant criteria. Although I have not time to go into the details, I have studied this matter closely.
My constituents and I are not bothered about either the difficulty in which the Commissioners find themselves or the overall turmoil in Europe. My constituents expect me,


as their Member of Parliament, to honour my commitment to the two Commissioners, and to ensure that the Government support the bid. My local authority has produced an excellent brochure entitled "The State of the Town", which puts a clear case for the required criteria. No doubt the Department of Trade and Industry has a copy, but if it has not I shall ensure, through the Minister, that it receives one.
I am prepared to encounter the usual ploy—"I will write to the hon. Gentleman later"—but let me ask the Minister a question. What precisely has Southend received in financial terms from Europe over the past five to 10 years? I am sick to death of all the spin: I am horrified by it. I am sick of all the press releases and photographs. I am sick of reading that people are "fighting for more money for Southend pier" and "fighting to help the Thames estuary". We have a Labour Member of the European Parliament at present, although, following the European elections, if we adopt this stupid list system, there will be a few Conservative MEPs whatever happens. The council is controlled by the Labour and Liberal parties—and here I stand, supporting its bid for assisted area status.
The bid was submitted to the Government office for the east, according to instructions, in October last year. Part of the executive summary of the bid, entitled "Determining areas for Assisted Area Status and Objective 2 eligibility of the EU Structural Funds", states:
A decision on when Assisted Area Status will be announced is still not clear.
I have read the Minister's response before. I do not buy it, and I do not accept what the Minister has said about the lack of clarity. Ministers are going backwards and forwards, but the House needs an announcement. I will not rest this afternoon on what the Minister says: I intend to pursue the matter, because I think that we are being sold a pup. Others may have bought this, but I do not.
The decision is closely linked with the areas proposed for objective 2 status. The Government will not submit the list of proposed objective 2 areas to the European Commission until the likely deadline of mid-June. That is a pressing deadline, given that we are almost in May now. The Minister will say, "I shall have to wait until mid-June". Obviously, I shall reply, "Fantastic! That is wonderful"—or I may say something else. The European timetable has also slipped, because of the resignation of the European Commission.
I have studied the review of the assisted areas map very closely. I accept that the Commission has issued new guidelines on regional aid, but, although the two maps should be complementary, there is no requirement for national Governments to ensure that the structural funds and assisted area maps are identical. I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation; if he cannot, perhaps he will write to me!
We have a pressing need for assistance. For many years, the perception of Southend as a leafy, affluent seaside town has masked the reality of high unemployment and multiple pockets of deprivation. The review relates to areas of 100,000 people; Southend has a population of 175,500. Southend, with the adjoining districts of Castle Point and Rochford, is one of the largest conurbations in the east of England. It has no rural hinterland.
The Government's transport policy has been disastrous for Southend; we have gridlock. We hear double-talk from Labour and the Liberals Democrats, who are against cars, and have no road-building projects. That is fine, but Ministers should come done to Southend and face my constituents. Because of those transport problems, our efforts to gain local investment are being frustrated. We have to contend with not only a Labour Government, but a local Lib-Lab council.
Southend's population density is 42 people per hectare, compared with an average of four people per hectare in Essex and two per hectare in the United Kingdom. Government statistics show that, in the next 10 years, Southend's population will grow by 4 per cent.
After its separation from Essex county council, our new unitary authority has fought hard to highlight some of the difficulties I have described. However, now that we have a unitary authority, our unemployment situation is much worse. The Minister may say that the unemployment rate is decreasing, but one person who genuinely wants to work but cannot find it is one too many. Southend has very high unemployment. The town has experienced a decline in both industrial and service industries—financial services, retailing, tourism, and the defence and fishing industries have suffered in the recent economic slowdown. The Minister with responsibility for fishing has done a sterling job in trying to meet some of my constituents' concerns, but, only yesterday, local fishermen telephoned me to say that they were faced with further difficulties relating to catch sizes and fishing time limits.
Between 1991 and 1996, 2,750 jobs were lost in Southend's financial sector. In just the past six months, another 867 jobs were lost from the defence industry, manufacturing, the retail sector and social services. Forecasts indicate that, in the next 10 years, a further 6.8 per cent. of Southend's total employment will be lost, whereas employment is expected to increase in the rest of eastern England. Konver and PESCA European Union funding have been available to Southend, which clearly demonstrates the state of local conditions.
Southend's local per capita gross domestic product is an alarming 71 per cent. of the national average. Moreover, it has suffered one of the steepest per capita GDP declines, from 77 to 71 per cent., of all NUTS3-— nomenclature of units of territorial statistics—areas. Our unemployment rate is 7.2 per cent., which is one and a half times the national average, and our long-term unemployment rate is among the worst 5 per cent. of all districts. There is high employee turnover in many of our service and tourism sectors, as many employees are casual, seasonal workers employed on relatively low wages. A high proportion of workers are women working part-time and for short periods. All those factors demonstrate that we have many employment problems.
Southend was once a dormitory town for London, but that role has diminished greatly over the years. Moreover, we have been greatly affected by the changing attitudes of holiday makers, who take advantage of flights and foreign holidays that are cheaper than local holidays.
The Government have the ability to provide the necessary assistance to create the incentives and opportunities for renewed investment in jobs and prosperity for Southend's local residents. Assisted area status, through regional selective assistance, would


provide numerous opportunities for high-technology businesses—we already have at least 14 such businesses—to flourish in Southend. Objective 2 status, from January 2000, would also enable us to tackle our concentration of problems in targeted areas of specific need.
As I said at the start of my speech, Southend is a great place in which to live and anyone who lives by the sea can enjoy the moving picture provided by the Thames estuary. As someone who was born in London, I enjoy the many facets of that estuary. The sea is not enough, however. Southend needs support from the Government. I do not care if Labour and the Liberal Democrat supporters do not like me as their local Member of Parliament; they should support the Lib-Lab council, the Labour MEP and all the officers who have worked so hard on the bid.
Southend's case is overwhelming. I represent a community not in despair, but in hope. If the Minister can persuade his colleagues to include us in the bid, I shall be the first to make sure that his support, and that of those responsible for getting that bid accepted in Europe, is recognised.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): In the relatively short time that remains, I shall do my best to address all the points that have been raised. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing today's debate on assisted area status for Southend. He raised this matter in a recent question to the House, and he has eloquently put the case for his area again today. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has also brought the problems of Southend to the attention of the House and of Ministers on some recent occasions. We are certainly aware of their concerns.
Many hon. Members share the hon. Gentleman's interest in the assisted area review. Since I became a Minister, I have met some 50 hon. Members from all parties who wished to discuss the importance of assisted area status and I have corresponded with many others. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not taken advantage of the open door policy that I operate in this matter, but I would be more than happy to see him.
Let me set out where matters stand on the review. As I mentioned on Monday night in a similar debate sponsored by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), the coverage of the new assisted areas map will be reduced from present levels and inevitably there will be some hard choices to be made in designating areas. We have yet to take final decisions. The Government are considering their proposals for the new assisted areas and we will put them to the Commission as soon as possible.
Our review follows the publication last year of new European Commission guidelines on regional aid, which require all member states to propose new assisted areas to operate from 1 January 2000. The guidelines are part of efforts by the Commission to control the overall level of state aids in Europe. As a result, the UK faces a reduction in the population coverage of its map, as does the EU. The figure for the UK is about three quarters of our current coverage. Inevitably, that will mean hard choices and some areas will be disappointed.
However, we should also bear in mind the wider picture: the UK has traditionally been one of the lowest providers of state aids in the EU. Removing distortions to competition by reducing levels of state aids will help UK firms both inside and outside the assisted areas. The lower aid limits that the guidelines will introduce are expected to bear down particularly on other EU states, and that will be good for British firms, not just those in the assisted areas.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned timing. Let me try to set his mind at rest. I am not sure that I will be able to do so, as he seems determined to be discontented, but I shall do my best. The Commission had asked for proposals by 31 March. That was always an ambitious deadline, and about half the member states have not yet submitted their proposals to the Commission. We are working to complete the map as soon as possible, and the Commission is aware of that, but our overriding objective must be achieving the best outcome for Great Britain. We cannot rush the task. We could quickly draw a map that followed the Commission's rules, but we want to draw a map that uses our reduced population coverage most effectively—the right map for Britain.
We want to do some more work on our proposals. We must also respect the purdah periods before the local elections and the elections in Scotland and Wales on 6 May, and again before the European elections. That makes it unlikely that we will be able to make an announcement before mid-June.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a public consultation exercise is under way on European structural funds objective 2 areas for the period from 1 January 2000. The consultation period ends on 25 May, and in the early summer we shall draw up our proposals for the new objective 2 areas. The two maps have different purposes and do not have to be identical. Taken together, however, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, they should provide a coherent approach to regional development. Our announcements of our proposals for the two maps should therefore together set out a coherent strategy for tackling regional needs.
Let me say a few words about the Government's approach to the review. In reviewing the map, we are attempting to identify areas of need where there are opportunities for creating jobs and for investment by industry—in other words, areas where regional selective assistance will be effective in tackling need.
In the review we are considering all areas, and we have been keen to listen to local views on all matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the points made by Southend borough council in its submission for the public consultation are being carefully considered.
The task that we have been set is not easy. As I have said, United Kingdom population coverage under the new map will be about three quarters of current levels. We must make our proposals on the basis of the rules set out in the guidelines. I am conscious of the lack of time, so I shall not rehearse them now, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of them, and of some of the difficulties that we face in drawing up the right basis for the geographical units in the map.
The review has demonstrated the wide variety of needs faced by areas throughout the country. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise, assisted area status cannot


address all those needs; nor will it always be the most appropriate answer. There are other measures to help development.
In England, we expect the regional development agencies—for Southend, that means the East of England development agency—to help in drawing up strategies for developing their areas. The agency that covers Southend is already preparing its economic development strategy for the east of England, which I am sure will take account of the needs of Southend.
As part of its regeneration function, the agency administers the single regeneration budget. Current activities funded from that include an eight-year scheme, which began in 1997, to regenerate the area of Shoeburyness in Southend. It includes projects aimed at providing training for employment and initiatives to help prepare school leavers for life and work.
In addition, as we said in the White Paper on competitiveness, which was published in December, the Government are looking at new measures to support the growth of smaller businesses in selected areas with particular needs. We are especially keen to support and promote high-technology small firms and other small firms with high growth potential, such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about unemployment in Southend. Unemployment is a matter for concern wherever it occurs, and I sympathise with his concerns. However, I understand that firms are investing in Southend. Olympus has moved its research and development centre there, creating more than 100 jobs, and the Rowellan Group has built a £5 million hotel complex in the town, creating almost 150 new jobs. That is encouraging and I hope that Southend will see more such investment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned European funds. As he rightly guessed, I shall write to him about the broader question, but let me try to set his mind at rest by drawing his attention to a couple of things of which he may not be fully aware. He mentioned the funds that the Southend travel-to-work area received for three projects under the Konver II Community initiative and three under the PESCA Community initiative. European money has also supported projects in the area under structural funds objective 3 to assist the unemployed, and under objective 4 which helps with reskilling the work force.
Under the current programme for European structural funds, the Southend travel-to-work area will receive £1.5 million. I will write to the hon. Member for Southend, West in answer to his broader questions, but I hope that he is sufficiently reassured that Southend has not been ignored by the European Union. Indeed, Southend is doing well from the EU. We are consulting on the objective 2 map and we hope to receive a submission from the hon. Gentleman and from Southend borough council.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by my comments today. I urge him to take advantage of the open door policy, which I have operated for all colleagues, to come to see me to discuss the needs of Southend. He is welcome to write to me if he would prefer not to confront me in person, but he would be welcome to a cup of tea in the Department of Trade and Industry at any time. He need only give my office a call. I hope that he will not be as shy in the future as he has been in the past three or four months, and that he has received some reassurance to pass on to his constituents in Southend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock.